Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 222
Instituted on : 09.07.2020.
Decided on : 05.08.2022.
Rajneesh S/o Kuldeep Singh R/o village Singhpura Khurd, District-Rohtak ..............Complainant.
Vs.
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited Regd. Office: 1st Floor HDFC House, 165 Backbay Reclaimation, H.T.Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-40020 through its Authorized Constituted Attorney.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Shri D.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle car(Chevrolet Beat) no. HR/19G/0840 and it was insured for the period of 27.06.2018 to 26.06.2019 from the opposite party vide policy no. 2311100325799000000 and its IDV value is Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further submitted that at the time of purchasing the car, the opposite party given only one key of the car to the complainant. It is further submitted that the alleged vehicle was stolen on 25.08.2018 and the said incident was told to police and given a complaint of theft of car and intimation of the same was also given to the opposite party within time on the toll free number. The complainant visited the concerned police post many times for getting the copy of FIR but copy of FIR No. 0597 dated 11.09.2018 was given to the complainant belatedly. Thereafter claim was filed with the opposite party and on that opposite party appointed investigator officer and complainant submitted all the required documents to investigator. The officials of the opposite party assured to the complainant to disburse the claim amount to the complainant with in short period. The complainant requested the opposite party many times to disburse his amount but they had not given any heed to the request of complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make/refund the payment of IDV Value Rs.2,00,000/- besides the amount of Rs.40,000/- for harassment as compensation on account of deficiency in service alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of theft till realization and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the claim of the complainant was closed by the opposite party on the ground of non-submissions of the requisite documents. The complainant even after various repeated requests and reminder letters failed to submit the requisite documents and in the absence of those documents the opposite party was not able to decide the claim on merits and the same was closed and not repudiated. The claim was lodged with the opposite party on 05.09.2018 whereas the alleged theft took place on 25.08.2018, meaning thereby that the claim intimation was done after the delay of 11 days from the alleged date of theft, and no reasonable justification was given by the insured for delay intimation. It is further submitted that even after the delay intimation, the opposite party processed the claim of the complainant and made requests vide letter date 05.11.2018, to the complainant for submission of the documents for the purpose of verification and processing of the claim of the complainant, however complainant failed to provide the requisite documents to the opposite party. Further opposite party again vide letter dated 31.01.2019, requested to the complainant to submit the requisite documents. Due to non-filing of requisite documents, the opposite party closed the complainant’s claim vide letter dated 22.02.2019 which was duly served upon the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the party of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and has closed his evidence on dated 01.09.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on 16.05.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties in their evidence. The claim of the complainant has been closed by the opposite party on the ground of not submitting some documents. The last letter written by the opposite party to the complainant is dated 22.02.2019 which is placed on record as Ex.R4. Through this letter respondent officials demanded endorsement in FIR, NOC and form no.29, 30, letter of indemnity and Court Approved Final Report and the claim of the complainant has been closed as ‘No claim’ by the insurance company. In this complaint, the vehicle of the complainant has been stolen on 25.08.2018 and regarding the theft, intimation has been given by the complainant to the police and he moved an application with concerned police station on the same day i.e. 25.08.2018. The application is Ex.C1 and endorsement has been made by the concerned police station alongwith seal. The FIR was got registered on 11.09.2018 belatedly by the police officials. Hence the delay if any in lodging the FIR was not in the hands of the complainant and the same was on the part of police officials, who lodged the FIR belatedly. Copy of FIR is already on file. The intimation regarding theft had been given to respondent on 05.09.2018 as admitted by respondent in their written statement. The complainant also placed on record untraced report issued by the Presiding officer Sh. Ashish Kumar, Addl. Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.) dated 13.07.2019. At the time of arguments, copy of NOC is also placed on record by the complainant as ‘Annexure-JN-A’. All the relevant documents have already been placed on record by the complainant and also supplied to the opposite party. Hence there is unnecessary harassment to the complainant by the opposite party. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to pay the IDV of the vehicle to the complainant, which as per policy Ex.R1 is Rs.200000/-.
7. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e Rs.200000/-(Rs.two lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 09.07.2020 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. However complainant is directed to complete the formalities e.g. letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C., signed form no.29-30, submit indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party shall comply with the order dated 05.08.2022 of this Commission within one month from the date of submission of alleged documents by the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.08.2022.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
