Delhi

North East

CC/337/2022

Salman Naba - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

03 Apr 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. 337/22

 

In the matter of:

 

		Salman Naba, C-31, Gali No. 20, C Block, Ghonda Ext., New Delhi 110053		Complainant
		Versus
		HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Plot No. C-9, 3rd Floor, Pearl Best Heights II, Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, New Delhi 110034		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER:		10.08.2022 05.02.2024 03.04.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

 Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant 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 the Complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing no.                            DL 55 AS 1952 (Splender plus). The said vehicle was duly insured with the Opposite Party. The period of insurance was from 12.06.2021 to 11.06.2022. The premium amount of the insurance policy was Rs. 1,492/- and the company assessed the IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 21,735/-. Complainant stated that on 12.01.2022, the insured vehicle of the Complainant was stolen from the outside of the residence of the Complainant. It is stated that he immediately registered the insurance claim for the theft of the vehicle with the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that before registering the claim before the Opposite Party, he lodged an online FIR on E-police Station, Bhajanpura, North East. On 25.01.2022, Opposite Party sent its surveyor to take the stock of the theft incident and to collect all the relevant documents. Complainant stated that he submitted all the relevant documents to the surveyor (few documents were not available at that time and same were sent to the Opposite Party through speed post on 15.02.2022). Complainant stated that the said surveyor demanded Rs. 5,000/- for speedy recovery of the insurance policy claim. Complainant stated that upon rejecting the bribe demand of the surveyor, surveyor told the Complainant that it was a lengthy process and claim would take time to get reimbursed. Complainant stated that after completing all the requirements and repeated calls, Opposite Party did not satisfy the claim of the Complainant. On 16.03.2022, Complainant filed an application before MLO Transport Department, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi apprising him about the theft incident and praying for the safe custody of the stolen vehicle. Complainant stated that final report was submitted by the SHO with regard to the said vehicle and the same was accepted as untraced by the concerned court. Complainant stated that he also filed an online complaint before National Consumer Helpline an Alternative Dispute Redressal Mechanism on 09.05.2022 and in this reference Opposite Party submitted its reply on 20.05.2022 and stated that “on perusal of the report submitted by the fact finder and the documents/information submitted by Complainant, following has been observed that Complainant had mention in his statement given to Opposite Party that Complainant had submitted two original keys of the insured vehicle and stated that both the keys are original, however as per the observation of the Opposite Party both the keys are different from each other. Hence please clear the stand on above mentioned point. Please clear, why the claim should not be repudiated in misrepresentation of the facts”. In this regard, Complainant sent a detailed reply as to why one key was slightly different from another on whats app. On 13.06.2022 Complainant again made a complaint before National Consumer Helpline an Alternative Dispute Redressal Mechanism but no relief was provided by the Opposite Party. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and                  Rs. 21,735/- i.e. the IDV of the vehicle along with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date when claim became due. 

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit. The Complainant did not provide the complete information and the required documents. It is stated that the Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is stated that it was observed that the two keys of the vehicle supplied by the Complainant were different from each other. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied and it is prayed that 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 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 Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Ms. Shweta Pokhriyal, Authorized Representative of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that his two wheeler was stolen from outside of his house. It is his case that at the time of theft his two wheeler was having a valid insurance policy which was issued by Opposite Party. It is his case that he has completed all the formalities and despite that his claim was not passed by the Opposite Party. The case of the Opposite Party is that the two keys provided by the Complainant of the two wheeler in question were different from each other. It is also alleged by the Opposite Party that the Complainant did not supply the necessary documents which were demanded by it.
7. From the perusal of the file it is revealed that following facts are admitted:

(I) That the two wheeler of the Complainant was stolen from the outside of his residence.

(II) That the said two wheeler in question was having a valid insurance policy at the time of theft and the said policy was issued by the Opposite Party.

8. The main objection of the Opposite Party is that the two keys of the vehicle which were supplied by the Complainant were different from each other. However, this fact has not been proved in evidence. There is no basis on the basis of which the Opposite Party is alleging that the two keys were different from each other. No scientific evidence has been led nor the affidavit of the surveyor has been filed. Therefore, this plea taken by the Opposite Party cannot be believed.
9. The other plea raised by the Opposite Party is that the Complainant did not supply the required documents. On the other hand, the case of the Complainant is that he has replied the show cause notice issued by the Opposite Party.  The perusal of the affidavit filed by Ms. Shweta Pokhriyal  i.e. evidence by way of affidavit shows that the assertions made in the affidavit are not specified, it is simply stated that the Complainant did not provide all the required information along with the required document as demanded through various letters. However, no such letters have been proved on record nor the delivery of the same has been proved on record. Therefore, this assertion of the Opposite Party cannot be believed.
10. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay the IDV of the two wheeler i.e. Rs. 21,735/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
11. Order announced on 03.04.2024.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President