BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Jasvinder Singh son of Sh. Bhagat Singh resident of 7159, Jalbera Road Village Sounda, Ambala City Distt. Ambala

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Having its Regd./Corporate Office 1^st Floor, 165-166, Backbay Reclamation, H.T.Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020.
2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd, Branch office S.C.O 237, 2nd Floor, Karnal, Haryana 132001.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:       Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                             Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

(i) To pay IDV of Rs.6,00,000/ along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 17-9-2017 till its actual realization.

(ii) To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony, torture and physical harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant.

(iii) To pay Rs.7,500/- as cost of legal notice.

(iv) To pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the deficiency in services.

(v) To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

(vi) Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Truck/ Canter make ICHER Motors bearing registration no.HR37-C-7487  to earn his live hood and the same was insured with the OPs vide policy no. 2315201639224500000 valid from 31-12-2016 to midnight of 30-12-2017 midnight on paying premium of Rs.34,401/-. On 16-9-2017 the complainant had gone to Sector 5 NEPKO Compound Faridabad after loading country liquor from Ambala. The complainant himself drove the canter and Amandeep Singh s/o Sh. Chud Singh was cleaner in that canter. After unloading the country liquor when the complainant returned to Ambala, in the way the complainant stopped his canter for taking meal at Shiv Dhaba at YMCA Chowk on NH 32 in Faridabad and parked it at about 11:50 p.m. After taking meal when the complainant came outside from Shiv Dhaba, he found that his canter was missing from there and it was stolen by some unknown person. The complainant immediately reported the matter to Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad, who registered the FIR no.800 dated 17-9-2017 under section 379 regarding the theft of above said canter. After taking the copy of FIR from the police, the complainant visited the office of  OP No.2 and furnished copy of FIR and other documents for insurance claim of his canter. OP No.2 told the complainant to furnish untraced report for settlement of his claim. The untraced report of the said canter was presented by the police before learned Illaqua Magistrate Sh. Sandeep Singh J.M.I.C Faridabad on 18-2-2019 and the statement of the complainant was recorded on the same day i.e. 18-2-2019. The complainant received the untraced report on 21-2-2019, which was supplied to OP No.2 for settlement of his claim. Thereafter, when his claim was not settled by the OPs despite number of requests having been made in the matter, he served legal notice on 18-1-2021 upon the OPs in the matter but to no avail. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, estoppal, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and territorial jurisdiction etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the claim of the complainant was closed by the OPs on the ground of non submissions of the requisite documents. The complainant even after various repeated requests and reminders/letters failed to submit the requisite documents. In absence of the requisite documents, the OPs were not able to decide the claim on merits and therefore the same was closed and not repudiated. It is worthwhile to mention here that the complainant has overlooked the closure letter sent by the OPs, by considering the same as repudiation letter. The documents sought were necessary to decide the genuineness of the claim. Insurance company including the OPs are the custodian of public money and thus it is incumbent upon the OPs to ensure that the claims which are intimated are genuine and justified in all aspects, so as to avoid any misuse of public money. On receiving the intimation of theft of the vehicle, the OPs without any delay processed the claim of the complainant. After scrutinizing the documents and after verification of theft it was found that the documents submitted by the complainant were insufficient to settle the claim. Therefore, vide letter dated 13/08/2018 followed by reminders dated 21/08/2018 & 03/09/2018, the OPs  requested the complainant to provide the following documents but the complainant failed to supply the same:-

1. Vehicle particular,

2. RTO letter for safe custody,

3. Last service bill/Service history,

4. Loan account statement,

5. Non-Repo letter,

6. 1 Original Key,

7. Letter of indemnity and subrogation along with witness ID, 8. RTO forms 26,28,29,30

Firstly, the claim of the complainant is closed and not repudiated and secondly the loss happened on 26/04/2018 and claim is closed on 21/09/2018 and not repudiated. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Manoj Prajapati, Authorized Signatory, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. as Annexure OP-A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 to OP-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not settling the claim of the complainant in respect of theft of his vehicle despite the fact that all the formalities were completed and necessary documents were submitted with the OPs, the OPs are deficient in providing service, negligent and adopted unfair trade practice, thereby causing huge financial loss and mental agony and harassment to the complainant.  
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the objections taken in the written version submitted that since the complainant failed to provide certain documents with regard to theft of his vehicle, despite making number of requests, as such, his claim could not be processed by the OPs and was ultimately closed.
8.           The first question that falls for consideration is as to whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint? It may be stated here that since the complainant is a resident of Ambala, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission as such, in this view of the matter, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint in view of Section 34 (2) (d) of CPA 2019 and therefore, objection taken by the OPs in this regard is rejected.
9.           Coming to merits of this case, the facts with regard to issuance of insurance policy in question  in favour of the complainant in respect of  the vehicle in question; payment of premium by him to the OPs; occurrence of theft of the said vehicle during the currency of the said policy; reporting of matter to the Police and the Insurance Company and that till date claim of the complainant has not been paid by the OPs and on the other hand, the same stood closed by them are not in dispute, as such, the moot question which falls for consideration is as to whether, the complainant is entitled to any relief in this case or not. It may be stated here that the only contention raised by the OPs for non consideration of the claim of the complainant is that he failed to provide certain documents asked for by them in the matter. We have gone through the letters dated 13.08.2018, Annexure OP-3  21.08.2018, Annexure OP-4 and 03.09.2018, Annexure OP-5, whereby the following documents were sought by the OPs from the complainant:-

1. Letter to RTO for keeping the Registration certificate in safe custody duly Acknowledged by RTO with stamp.
2. Last Supporting Bill / Maintenance Records / History of the vehicle.
3. Updated Loan Account Statement.
4. Letter from Financer stating that they have not repossessed the vehicle.
5. All original ignition Keys & Photo Impression of Keys with Insured Signature.
6. Un-traced Report U/S 173 CRPC Certified by Court.
7. Cancelled cheque & NEFT Mandate form (post approval).
8.  Letter of Indemnity cum Subrogation duly Notarized with copy of Witness ID proof (post approval
9. RTO Transfer Forms No.26, 28, 29, 30 (4 each), duly signed. (post approval).

10.           It is significant to mention here that it is clearly coming out from the contents of legal notice dated 18.01.2021, Annexure C-5 that the complainant has clearly informed the OPs that he had already provided all the documents for processing the claim in question, including the untraced report dated 18.02.2019. It is significant to mention here that this legal notice was served upon the OPs through the registered post dated 19.01.2021, Annexure C-6, yet, there is nothing on record that the OPs have replied this legal notice and have challenged the contents thereof. Keeping all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that if we order the complainant to provide the following mandatory documents i.e. copy of Un-traced Report U/S 173 CRPC Certified by Court; copy of Cancelled cheque & NEFT Mandate form; Letter of Indemnity cum Subrogation duly Notarized with copy of Witness ID proof, to the OPs, that will meet the ends of justice.
11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dispose of the present complaint with directions to the complainant, to provide the following mandatory documents i.e. copy of Un-traced Report U/S 173 CRPC Certified by Court; copy of Cancelled cheque & NEFT Mandate form; Letter of Indemnity cum Subrogation duly Notarized with copy of Witness ID proof to the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. At the same time, we also direct the OPs, to consider and settle the claim of the complainant in respect of theft of his vehicle in question, after receiving the aforesaid documents from the complainant, within a period of 45 days there from, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, the complainant is left with the liberty to file a fresh complaint, if any cause of action arose to him, qua the claim in question.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room. 

Announced:- 02.11.2023