Haryana

StateCommission

A/1277/2017

DEVINDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV GUPTA

15 Dec 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1277 of 2017

Date of Institution:  26.10.2017

Date of Decision:   15.12.2017

 

 

Devinder Kumar, aged about 36 years son of Shri Vijay Singh, resident of House No.67, Jaat Mohalla, Village Sarupur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

 

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, 06^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400059, through its Divisional Manager/Principal Officer.

 

2.      HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Shubham Towers, 1^st Floor, near Fortis Escorts Hospital, Neelam Chowk, NIT, Faridabad, through its General Manager/Principal Officer.

 

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

   

 

 

Present:     Shri Gaurav Gupta, counsel for the appellant.

                            

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated September 27^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited-opposite parties (for short ‘Insurance Company’) was directed to pay Rs.2,94,502.70 (amount assessed by the Surveyor) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim, that is, February 04^th, 2015 till its realization; Rs.40,000/- harassment and Rs.10,000/- litigation expenses to Devinder Kumar-complainant on account of damage to his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-38T-4574.

2.      The vehicle of the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company for the period September 13^th, 2014 to September 12^th, 2015. On December 24^th, 2014, the vehicle met with an accident. First Information Report (FIR) was registered. The Insurance Company was also informed. The complainant submitted claim with the Insurance Company but it was repudiated on the ground that Nirmal Kumar, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, was not having valid driving license. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant has challenged the impugned order on the short ground that the complainant submitted the Estimate (Annexure-1) of Rs.8,04,003.04 and the District Forum should have awarded the amount of estimation. He has fairly conceded that the complainant did not have any other evidence to prove the actual amount spent by him on the repair of the vehicle. This being so, the amount cannot be awarded on the basis of Estimate. The Insurance Company appointed the Surveyor, who after examining the vehicle, assessed the loss at Rs.2,94,502.70, which the District Forum awarded and that too alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum; Rs.40,000/- harassment and Rs.10,000/- litigation expenses. In this view of the matter, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. The appeal is dismissed.

  

 

 

Announced 15.12.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

  D.R.