Haryana

Karnal

359/2012

Vivek Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Sanjeev Lather

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.359 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.:25.07.2012

                                                               Date of decision 8.8.2016

 

Vivek Kumar son of Shri Ramesh Kumar, resident of village Teek, District Kaithal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO no.237, Second Floor, Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO no.124-125, Sector-08-C, Chandigarh, through its Assistant Claim Manager Mr. Naveen Munjal.

3. L.R. Hyundai, N.H. 65, Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its Proprietor/Partner.

4. Deepak Grover, authorized Surveyor of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., resident of House no.66, Sector-19-A, Urban Estate, Kaithal.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Sanjeev Lather Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Sanjeev Vohra Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.

                     Shri Ram Singh Saini Advocate for opposite party no.3

                 

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured his car bearing registration no.HR-09-C-4977 with the opposite parties, vide policy no.2311200155710300000 and cover note no.2300968392 valid for the period of 12.11.2011 to 11.11.2012. The said car met with an accident on 14.11.2011 at one kilometer ahead of village Jhinjana District Shamli. The matter was reported to the police and First Information Report was registered in the concerned Police Station. He informed the opposite parties about the accident on the same day i.e. 14.11.2011. The legal representative/surveyor of the opposite parties i.e. opposite party no.4 visited the site of accident as well as Police Station and collected relevant information. After authorization of the surveyor he shifted the vehicle from the spot to the workshop of opposite party no.3 and got repaired the same by spending an amount of Rs.1,23,899/-. Thereafter, he submitted damage claim of the vehicle with opposite parties no.1 and 2 through opposite party no.4, vide claim no.C-230011076036 and completed all the formalities. The opposite parties did not pay the claim, rather sent letter dated 9.3.2012 asking him to provide some documents, though those documents, were already submitted by him. Ultimately, he sent registered letter dated 22.3.2012 to the Assistant Claim manager of opposite parties no.1 and 2, but the same also did not yield any result. In this way, there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which he suffered mental agony and harassment, apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite parties  no.1 and 2 filed joint written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that this forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint; that the complainant is estopped for filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct and that the complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this forum in summary manner.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant reported the factum of accident to the opposite parties on 10.12.2011 i.e. after 26 days of the alleged accident. Opposite parties immediately deputed Grover & Associates, independent surveyor for survey of the loss. Thereafter, the opposite parties requested the complainant, vide letters dated 6.2.2012, 9.3.2012 and 3.4.2012 to furnish the required documents, but he failed to submit the same. Therefore, claim of the complainant was repudiated, vide letter dated 2.4.2012 on the ground that the relevant documents were not submitted. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.3 filed separate written statement. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant is bad for mis-joinder of the necessary parties.

                   On merits, it has been admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was repaired by the opposite party no.3. It has been pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.3 and the complainant has not sought any relief against it.

4.                Opposite party no.4 was duly served but none put into appearance on his behalf. Therefore, exparte proceeding were initiated against him, vide order dated 18.12.2012.

5.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 have been tendered.

6.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O7 have been tendered.

7.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

8.                There is no dispute between the parties that the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration no.HR-09-C-4977 was insured with the opposite parties no.1 and 2 for the period of 12.11.2011 to 11.11.2012 and the same met with an accident on 14.11.2011. Surveyor was appointed by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to assess the loss.

9.                The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 solely on the ground that he did not submit the documents as mentioned in the letters  dated 6.2.2012, 9.3.2012 and 3.4.2012, which were necessary for processing the claim. The opposite parties have produced the copies of letters dated 6.2.2012 , 9.3.2012 and 3.4.2012 as Ex.O1, O3 and O5 respectively. Receipts of the courier regarding sending these letters have also been produced as Ex.O2, O4 and O6. The complainant in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A has not disputed about the receipt of the said letters. A perusal of the Ex.O1 and Ex.O3 shows that the opposite parties asked the complainant to submit copy of PAN card, recent photograph, police report, residence proof, self attested photo copy of previous policy alongwith completely filled claim form. There is no evidence of the complainant worth the name, which may establish that the compliance of the said letters was made by him by submitting the required documents.  In the complaint as well as affidavit it has been submitted that he had submitted First Information Report, bills etc. It has not been specifically averred that the required documents were submitted.  Under such circumstances, there is no reason to discard the plea raised by opposite parties no.1 and 2 that the required documents were not submitted by the complainant within time despite sending letters dated 6.2.2012, 9.3.2012 and 3.4.2012.  However, the factum of accident is not in dispute. The surveyor had assessed the loss. The complainant spent huge amount in getting the vehicle repaired. Therefore, he is certainly entitled to be reimbursed in respect of the amount spent by him on repairs of the vehicle. In such a situation, repudiation of the claim altogether for not submitting the documents within certain time limit would not be justified and that would certainly lead to injustice.

10.              In view of the afore discussed facts and circumstances, the complaint is accepted to the extent that the complainant would submit the required documents as mentioned in the letter dated 6.2.2012, 9.3.2012 and 3.4.2012 of opposite parties no.1 and 2 within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, the opposite parties would decide his claim afresh within 30 days. This order be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 08.08.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member