Haryana

Karnal

211/2012

Subhash Singh S/o Mahinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC EGRO Gernal Insurance Company Ltd., 2 HDFC EGRO General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Narwal

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.211 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt. 27.4.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 13.08.2015

 

Subhash Singh son of Sh.Mahinder Singh resident of House No.12, Avtar Colony, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

                                                             ……….Complainant.

 

                             Versus

 

1.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Karnal, through its Divisional Manager, Sector 12, Karnal .

 

2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd. 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park,  Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai 40059.

 

                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

 

                       Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                       Protection Act.

 

Before             Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                      Smt. Shashi Sharma ………Member.

                      Sh.Anil Sharma……….Member.  

         

 Present:          Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the complainant.

                      Sh.Sanjeev Vohra Advocate for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the allegations that he purchased Eicher truck bearing chassis No. MC226HRC0BC051774 and  Engine No. E483CDBC526072   from  Bansal Motors,  GT Road, Karnal,  vide invoice No.  VS/00824 dated 29.3.2011 for a sale consideration of Rs.10,55,000/-.    He got insured the same from Opposite Party ( in short OP) vide insurance policy bearing No. 2315200074269400000 and cover note No. 2300524789  by giving  total  premium amount of Rs.16847/-. The policy was valid from 28.3.2011 to 27.3.2012  The truck was got registered from District Transport Officer, Karnal, vide registration No. HR-45-A-7837.   When he inspected the cover note issued by the Ops, it was transpired that value of the vehicle was mentioned as Rs.7,30,000/- instead of Rs.9,36,000/-. He visited the office of OP no.1 and requested the officials to  mention  correct value of the vehicle in the cover note.  After getting  directions from OP no.2, premium  amount was calculated as Rs.16847/- for  total value of Rs.9,36,000/- and officials of the Ops issued another policy No.2315200074269400001 and  cover note No.2300524789 after getting extra calculated amount of Rs.2745/- from him.

 

                   It is further the case of the complainant that on 30.5.2011 at about 3.30AM, the said truck met with an accident near  HLA School, Mathura – Vrindavan Road with the tractor trolly,  due to which the truck was badly damaged. The matter was reported to the  local Police and DDR  No.15  dated 30.5.20121 was recorded in  Police Post, Jait, Police Station, Varindavan, Mathura. Thereafter.  he lodged his claim in the office of Ops. Surveyor was sent to  the place of accident, who after inspection of the vehicle declared the same under total loss.  After report of the surveyor, the Ops sold the said vehicle in auction, which was also purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-.Accordingly,  amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was  adjusted in favour of the complainant but, the remaining amount of Rs.3,86,000/- remained outstanding towards the Ops, which was agreed to be paid within 20/30 days. However, Ops did not pay the balance amount of Rs.3,86,000/- despite several requests. In this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of Ops which resulted into mental agony and harassment to the complainant apart from financial loss.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, who filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction  to  try and decide the complaint.

 

                   On merits,   it has been submitted that complainant was duly informed on  22.8.2011 to produce  the vehicle for re-inspection and to give consent to settle the claim on net of  salvage basis, but the complainant failed to furnish the details of the  aforesaid queries, therefore, his claim was made as no claim due to non furnishing of information as required. There was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, he filed his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8.

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Ops affidavit of Assistant Manager, Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O6 have been filed.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                The copy of the invoice Ex.C6 shows that complainant has purchased one Eicher vehicle for an amount of Rs.10,55,000/-.  As per copy of the  insurance policy Ex.C3, the said vehicle was insured for an amount of Rs.7,30,000/- for the period of 28.3.2011 to 27.3.2012 and an amount of Rs. 16847/- was deposited by the complainant as premium. However, copy of the another policy Ex.C2 indicates that another policy was issued for insuring the vehicle for an amount of Rs.9,36,000/-. The policies Ex.C3 and Ex.C2 were in respect of the same cover note NO.2300524789. From these documents the plea of the complainant that initially his  truck was insured for an amount of Rs.7,30,000/- and thereafter the same was insured for an amount of Rs.9,36,000/- for the same period under same cover note, stands established.

 

7.                 The learned counsel for the Ops has  laid emphasis on the contention that initially the truck was insured for Rs.7,30,000/-, but the complainant got the same insured for additional amount after the accident without  the payment of additional amount of premium  and for that reason  no receipt  of payment of additional amount has been produced by the complainant. Therefore, the Ops are not liable to indemnify the complainant in respect of the policy for an amount of Rs.9,36,000/-.

 

 8.                     Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Ops cannot be accepted being devoid of force. Firstly, argument is beyond the pleadings. Secondly, the  best evidence could be in possession of Ops as to on which date additional premium of Rs.2745/- was deposited by the complainant, but no such record has been produced.  During course of arguments, the learned counsel for Ops stated that record is not traceable. Thus, the Ops have withheld the  best available evidence.. Therefore, an adverse inference is to be drawn against them. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation  in accepting  the plea of the complainant that he paid an amount of Rs.2745/- as additional amount for getting the vehicle insured for the value of Rs.9,36,000/- instead of Rs.7,30,000/-.

 

9.                          The letter  Ex.O3 issued by the Ops goes to show that claim of the complainant was settled on total loss basis considering the value of the vehicle as Rs.7,30,000/- and as per auction held by the company on 20.1.2011, the complainant retained the vehicle for Rs.5,50,000/- and as such net liability of the company remained Rs.1,79,000/- after deduction of  exclusion clause i.e. Rs.1000/- .It is established on record that insured value of the vehicle of the complainant was Rs.9,36,000/- instead of Rs.7,30,000/- as he paid the additional amount of premium and Ops had issued new policy in respect of Rs.9,36,000/- under the same cover note. The complainant has retained the salvage of the vehicle for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. As the vehicle was insured for Rs.9,36,000/-, the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.3,86,000/- minus the excess clause i.e. Rs.1000/-  i.e.  total  sum of Rs.3,85,000/-. However, the Ops have not paid the said amount to the complainant and as such there was deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

10.                               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion,  we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.3,85,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e.  27.4.2012  till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of  Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him together with a sum of Rs.5500/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses.  The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.   

 

Announced
dated:13.08.2015                                                                         

                                               

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

              

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member.

 

 

Present:          Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the complainant.

                      Sh.Sanjeev Vohra Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:13.08.2015                                                                         

                                               

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

              

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member.