Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/303/2022

Richard JV Madhok - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

05 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

RBT/Complaint Case No. 303/22

		Richard JV Madhok, S/o Jagmohan Das Mathok, R/o 4083, Sector- B-5 & 6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.	HDFC ERGO, HT Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai,   HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., 14, Ambadeep Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Delhi 110001   Also At: Plot No. C-9, 3rd Floor, Pearl Best Heights-II, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, North West, Delhi 110034		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER:		17.04.2018 28.11.2023 05.02.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is the owner of the Mercedes Benz car bearing registration no.   DL2 CAM 2626 and the said car was sold by the Complainant to his cousin brother namely Mr. Vijay Nagpal on 16.06.2017. Complainant stated that the said sale was never confirmed and finalized and in the intermittent period the said car met with an accident on 17.06.2017. At the time of accident,  Shri Abhinav Nagpal son of Shri. Vijay Nagpal was driving the car and he was having a valid driving licence. In the said accident, one Mr. Shyam Sunder Kalambe sustained injuries. Mr. Abhinav Nagpal took him to Ganga Ram Hospital where he was treated. Mr. Abhinav Nagpal paid Rs. 1,52,810/- to the hospital. However, the injured Shyam Sunder Kalambe succumbed to injuries. It is stated that at the time of accident the car was insured. An FIR No. 84/2017 was registered in P.S Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.  The said vehicle was impounded by the police and released on superdari. Thereafter, Complainant informed Opposite Parties and filed a claim form for Rs. 5,00,000/- as the estimated cost of damage and submitted all the documents. Complainant was informed about completion of the insurance formalities. It is his case that the damaged car was got repaired by Mohommad Mahfooz for a sum of  Rs. 5,10,000/-. Complainant stated that on 08.08.2017, Complainant received a Repudiation Letter from the Opposite Party. Complainant also issued a legal notice on 12.08.2018. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to declare the repudiation of the claim of the Complainant as per letter dated 08.08.2017 as illegal, misconceived, arbitrary and baseless. Complainant also prayed for  Rs. 6,62,810/- as claim of the Complainant along with interest @18 % from the date of submitting the claim and compensation which should not be less than Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed its common written statement. It is stated that the intimation regarding the accident of the vehicle was received by the Opposite Party on 05.07.2017 whereas the accident took place on 17.06.2017. This amounts to breach of condition of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. After the accident, the Opposite Party appointed a Surveyor namely M/s Atul Tyagi and Associates for conducting survey and investigation. The Surveyor submitted its report on 07.08.2017. As per Surveyor’s report, the Opposite Party was given an understanding that the Complainant had sold his vehicle to Mr. Abhinav Nagpal on 03.06.2017 but the same was not transferred in the name of Mr. Abhinav Nagpal by the Competent Authority. It is stated that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and for this reason the claim was repudiated by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Parties have filed common affidavit of     Smt. Shweta Pokhriyal, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that at the time of the accident the car was insured by the Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that the car was sold by the Complainant to his cousin brother Mr. Vijay Nagpal and his case is that this sale was not materialized. His case is that at the time of accident he was registered owner and the Opposite Parties rejected his claim without any valid reason. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that on the date of accident i.e. 17.06.2017 the Complainant had no insurable interest on the vehicle and there was privity of contract for the reason the Complainant had sold his vehicle to Mr. Abhinav Nagpal.
7. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured by the Opposite Parties at the time of accident. The claim of the Complainant was repudiated for the reason that at the time of accident the Complainant has no insurable interest as he had sold his vehicle to Mr. Abhinav Nagpal. The question is that whether the Complainant had sold his vehicle to Mr. Abhinav Nagpal. The case of the Complainant is that he had earlier sold his vehicle to Mr. Vijay Nagpal and his case is that the said sale could not materialized. In order to support this contention, the Complainant has filed his affidavit. The Opposite Parties did not lead any cogent evidence to show that the said vehicle had been sold to Mr. Abhinav Nagpal and that at the time of accident the Complainant was not owner of the car in question. Admittedly, at the time of accident Complainant was registered owner of the vehicle bearing no. DL2 CAM 2626. The Counsel for the Complainant has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which is reported as (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1 wherein it was held that the person in whose name motor vehicle is registered would be treated as owner of the vehicle. Therefore, keeping in view the evidence led by the Complainant and this judgment we are of the opinion that the Complainant was owner of the car bearing registration no. DL2 CAM 2626 at the time of accident and therefore, we are of the opinion that the claim of the Complainant was wrongly rejected by the Opposite Parties.
8. The case of the Complainant is that he has paid an amount of Rs. 5,10,000/- to Mr. Mohommad Mahfooz for repair of the car. He has also filed the copy of the bill of Mr. Mohommad Mahfooz for an amount of Rs. 5,10,000/-. This amount has not been disputed by the Opposite Parties, also one allocation of assessment for the vehicle has been filed which shows the assessed loss as  Rs. 7,63,294.65. This is on the higher side as compare to the payment made by the Complainant for the repair of the car.
9. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. An amount of  Rs. 5,10,000/- shall be paid to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally on account of the repair of the car along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation expenses shall also be paid to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.  
10. Order announced on 05.02.2024.

 

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

 

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)            Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President