Delhi

East Delhi

CC/844/2014

ASHOKA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 844/14

 

M/s. Ashoka Furnitures

WZ-100/5, Tatar Pur

Tagore Garden

New Delhi – 110 027

Through its Partner Sh. Rajiv Chawla                                  ….Complainant

 

Vs.     

HDFC Ergo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Head Off.: 1^st Floor, 165-166

Blackbay Redmation

H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate

Mumbai – 400 020

Branch Off.:

5^th Floor, Mahatta Tower

B-1 Block, Community Center

Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110 058

Through its General Manager                                                       …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 10.09.2014

Judgement Reserved on: 02.11.2018

Judgement Passed on: 19.11.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by M/s. Ashoka Furnitures against HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited (OP) under Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the present complaint has been filed by a partnership firm through one of its partners, Shri Rajiv Chawla, duly authorized by all the partners. 

            The complainant being the owner of vehicle Skoda Laura bearing registration no. DL-4C-NA-3354 got it insured with HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited (OP) vide policy no. 2311200670608600000 dated 30.01.2014 for period from 30.01.2014 to 29.01.2015.

            On the morning of 22.03.2014, after cleaning the car, the car cleaner kept the keys of the vehicle on the key stand in the lobby of the house at about 10.20 a.m. and at about 10.40 a.m., the complainant found that both the car and the key were missing.  The complainant made a call/complaint to the police without any delay.  Theft of the vehicle was also communicated to the respondent immediately.

            It was stated that after lodging the FIR bearing no. 227/14 P.S. Pubjabi Bagh under Section 379 IPC on 22.03.2014, the complainant approached the office of respondent and submitted the copy of FIR.  He was advised that for claim, he should bring the proper documents alongwith copy of FIR and untraced report.  The complainant submitted his claim to the office of respondent alongwith all necessary documents and untraced report dated 22.04.2014 and was assured by the official of respondent that they would reimburse the amount of claim and compensate him for the loss suffered by him due to the theft of vehicle. 

            On 14.07.2014, the complainant received the repudiation letter where his claim was rejected on the ground of gross negligence.  It has been stated by the complainant that the claim of the complainant had been rejected in an arbitrary manner, without any cogent reason; thus, this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of respondent.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for value of missing vehicle of Rs. 8,00,000/-; Rs. 15,000/- towards the expenses incurred by the complainant on account of telephonic communications and personal visits made to the office of OP; Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 35,000/- towards litigation expenses.

            The complainant has annexed Special Power of Attorney dated 19.04.2014, Registration Certificate, Driving License, Insurance Policy, FIR, Untraced Report, Letter to OP regarding deposit of necessary documents for settlement of claim and rejection letter with the complaint.            

3.  

It was stated that the complainant lodged the claim on 23.03.2014 and M/s. Suraksha Enterprises were appointed to investigate the matter.In the surveyor report, it was found that keys of the said vehicle were hanged in lobby of residential premises which was outside the place of residence, but within the boundary wall of the premises.It was gross negligence on the part of the complainant and violation of terms and conditions of the policy which states:

“The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of: the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damages and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part there of or any driver or employee for the insured.In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk”.

Hence, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as “NO CLAIM” vide letter dated 14.07.2014.Other facts have also been denied.

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and averments in the complaint have been reaffirmed. 

5.         In support of its case, the complainant has examined Shri Rajiv Chawla, partner of M/s. Ashoka Furniture (OP).  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited the documents such as copy of S.P.A. (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of registration certificate (Ex.CW-1/2), copy of certificate of insurance cum policy schedule (Ex.CW-1/3), copy of FIR (Ex.CW-1/4), copy of untraced report (Ex.CW-1/5), copy of the order dated 21.05.2014 in FIR no. 227/14 (Ex.CW-1/6), copy of list of documents supplied to OP (Ex.CW-1/7) and copy of respondent’s letter dated 14.07.2014 (Ex.CW-1/8).

            In defence, OP have examined Shri Pankaj Kumar, Manager-Claim of OP, who has deposed on oath.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of policy alongwith terms and conditions (Ex.RW-1/1) and copy of investigation report (Ex.RW-1/2).

6.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the parties.  Firstly, plea taken by OP is with respect to the territorial jurisdiction stating that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint.  The competency of this forum is not in dispute.  Hence, the present complaint can be decided by this Forum and thus, this preliminary objection is decided against OP. 

            Secondly, deciding upon the preliminary objection taken by the OP that complainant was not a consumer as it was a partnership firm and the insured vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, as per “Harsolia Motors vs. National insurance Company Ltd. [I(2005) CPJ 26 (NC)], it was held that contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and, therefore, there was no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage.   Hence, this also does not come in the aid of OP.

            Perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the vehicle was insured with OP and the factum of theft was also not disputed.  The claim of the complainant has been rejected on the ground of breach of policy terms and conditions stating it to be gross negligence on the part of the complainant.  It has been stated that the key of the insured vehicle was stolen from the lobby of the residential premises and the complainant has been consistent with the statement.

            When the keys are within the residential premises, it cannot be said that the complainant was negligent in taking care of the insured vehicle.  Thus, OP has rejected the claim of the complainant on flimsy ground.  Therefore, we allow the present complaint and direct OP to pay               Rs. 8,00,000/- (IDV) minus Rs. 2,000/- as compulsory deductable alongwith 7% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  We also award Rs. 30,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment, inclusive of litigation expenses. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        President