Delhi

North East

CC/55/2023

Raj Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.55/23

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, R/o H.No. L-106/1, Gali No. 6, Kartar Nagar, Jai Prakash Nagar, Garhi Mendu, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.	HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd.  Office at; 1st Floor, HDFC House, 165/166 Backbay Reclamation, HT Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020     HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Regional Office, 204, Laxmi Deep Building, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi 110092	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                       DATE OF ORDER  :

03.03.2023 02.05.2024 08.08.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that he was the owner of a car i.e. Maruti Car bearing no. DL 05 CQ 8019. Complainant stated that he got insured the said vehicle from the Opposite Party on 23.06.2020. The period of the said policy was from 28.06.2020 to 27.06.2021. Complainant stated that the said policy was a Zero Depreciation policy and Complainant had paid all the premiums as per the policy bond. Complainant stated that as per the terms and conditions of the policy the Complainant was fully insured against any damage to the vehicle from any accident/incident at any point. Complainant stated that on 18.05.2021, the said vehicle met with an accident and due to that the said vehicle was badly damaged. Complainant stated that after the accident, the said vehicle was taken for its service and repairing to the authorized service centre of Maruti at S.K. Motors Bulandshahar, U.P as the accident was took place in U.P. Complainant stated the he provided all the necessary documents as well as policy bond to the agent of the Opposite Party at the aforesaid Maruti Service Centre. Complainant stated that the authorized agent of the Opposite Party inspected the vehicle and estimated the value for repairing around Rs. 3,50,000/-. Complainant stated that the agent further informed that the claim file would be accepted within 3-4 days and the vehicle would be repaired after clearance of the claim from the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that the agent of the Opposite Party also charged             Rs. 1,000/- for preparation of the file as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant stated that after a week he tried to know the status of the claim file then agent of the Opposite Party informed that the claim file had been rejected and repairing of the vehicle would be done only after payment in cash from the Complainant. Complainant stated that he informed the agent of the Opposite Party that the vehicle was fully insured under the Zero Depreciation policy but the agent flatly refused to give any plausible reason for rejection of the claim and pressurized the Complainant to get repair the car at this own pocket after paying Rs. 3,50,000/-. Complainant stated that he had borne Rs. 74,871/- towards the parking charges. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards repairing of the vehicle and Rs. 74,871/-  towards parking charges. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards mental harassment and also prayed for litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit. The story has been concocted by the Complainant and it does not match with the tune of the damages to the vehicle. It is stated that the Complainant told the Opposite Party that on 25.01.2021 he sold his vehicle to one Mr. Suresh but the vehicle was not transferred in the name of Mr. Suresh either in the registration certificate or insurance policy. Thus, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The allegations of the complaint have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint. It is stated that the Complainant did not ever sell his vehicle to Mr. Suresh. It is stated that at the time of accident, Mr. Suresh was driving the vehicle as he is a friend of the Complainant. It is stated that there is no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Ms. Shweta Pokhriyal, wherein, she has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.  

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that his vehicle was insured by the Opposite Party and during the subsistence of the policy the vehicle met with an accident in Uttar Pradesh. His case is that the vehicle was taken to Maruti Workshop namely S.K Motors, Bulandshahar. His case is that the vehicle was fully insured and the Opposite Party has rejected his claim without any valid reason.
7. The case of the Opposite Party is that the mode of accident as explained by the Complainant does not match the damages caused to the vehicle in the accident. It is also its case that at the time of accident, the Complainant was not owner of the vehicle as he has sold the same to one Mr. Suresh on 25.01.2021. It is the case of the Opposite Party that the Complainant himself has admitted during investigation that he had sold the said vehicle to Mr. Suresh.
8. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that he has stated that on 18.05.2021 his car met with an accident in Uttar Pradesh. He has not specified the place where the accident took place. He has not given any detail regarding the accident nor the mode of accident nor the damage caused to the car in the said accident. No FIR or complaint was made to the police after the accident. How and from where the accidental car was taken to S.K Motors Bulandshahar.
9. The case of the Complainant is that he has not sold his vehicle to MR. Suresh and Mr. Suresh was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant had already sold his vehicle on 25.01.2021 to MR. Suresh. This fact has been corroborated by the Opposite Party in the affidavit of Ms. Shweta Pokhriya. The Complainant in his evidence filed by way of affidavit did not mention that he did not sell his vehicle to Mr. Suresh. The Opposite Party has also filed copy of a handwritten note dated 22.09.2021 written by the Complainant wherein he has written that he had sold his vehicle to Mr. Suresh and he did not know much about the accident. He has also stated in the said note that the complaint was being pursued by Mr. Suresh. The Complainant has not denied or disputed this note.
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant had already sold his vehicle to Mr. Suresh prior to the accident. He has also failed to prove the exact nature details, damage of the car during the accident. Nor he has proved the damages to the car were caused in the alleged accident.
11. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.

 

12. Order announced on 08.08.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)