Delhi

StateCommission

CC/383/2014

SH. SANDEEP TANEJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Oct 2020

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :22.10.2020

Date of Decision : 02.11.2020

COMPLAINT NO.383/2014

In the matter of:

 

 

Shri Sandeep Taneja (Managing Director),

M/s. Shanker Foundry India Pvt. Ltd.,

Office-554 Opp. Bank of India

Main G.T. Road,

Shahdara, Delhi-110032.                                                      ........Complainant

 

                                                Versus

 

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Office.Unit No.502, 504, 506,

5.  

B-1, Block Community Centre,

Janakpuri, New Delhi-110054.……Opposite Party

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. The case of the complainant is that he is Managing Director of M/s. Shanker Foundry India Pvt. Ltd.  and is registered owner of vehicle no.DL 3C BX 1724. The same was insured with OP from 01.08.13 to 31.07.14 for Rs.23,00,385/-. On 17.02.14 the car was stolen from his residence at C-228, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi-110092. At around 8.30 p.m. he  immediately  lodged complaint against P.S. Vivek Vihar, vide FIR no.126/14. He gave information to OP. He was shocked  when he received letter from OP on 18.06.14 vide which OP repudiated his claim by saying that during investigation by investigator, the vehicle had in built anti theft  immobilizer which   means that vehicle cannot be stolen without key. The complainant sent a detailed letter on 28.06.14. The contention of OP is that he had given only one key of the car out of the two which were with the complainant. The second key of the car was kept somewhere in the house of the complainant and was untraceable. Hence this complaint for directing OP to pay Rs.23,00,385/- with interest @18% interest, Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain. The complainant has also prayed for Rs.21,000/- towards cost  of litigation.
2. The OP has filed WS raising preliminary objections that allegations made in the complaint are false, frivolous and vexatious.  The complaint has been filed without any cause of action. The complainant has not filed any document to show that he is authorised to file the present case on behalf of M/s. Shanker Foundry India Pvt. Ltd.   The Toyota Fortuner was insured in the name M/s. Shanker Foundry India Pvt. Ltd. The investigation report revealed that complainant had  submitted only one ignition key and one gaze lock key. The complainant informed investigator that second ignition key was kept by him in the locker but subsequently stated that second ignition key was untraceable. The complainant also stated that event of theft was  captured in the CCTV camera installed by him but did not share the footage of the same. The conduct of the complainant confirms that second key was left in the vehicle which resulted in theft within a  span of half an hour after the violation of the condition no.4 of the policy where no reasonable care has been taken to safeguard the vehicle from untoward incidents like theft. Intimation  to the OP was given on 19.02.14 i.e. after two days which is clearly against terms and conditions of the policy.  Delay in intimation has been held to be fatal  in cases referred by OP in para-16, 18 and 20 of the preliminary objections.
3. On merits the OP took same defense.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and his own affidavit in evidence.
5. On the other hand the OP filed affidavit of Shri Asim Rohtagi licensed investigator and that of Shri Pankaj Kumar, Manager Legal.
6. Complainant has filed written arguments.
7. I have gone through the material on record and heard arguments.  The objection  of delay of two days in intimating theft to the OP is no more fatal in view latest decision of Hon’ble SC in Om Parkash vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. IV(2017) CPJ 10 SC.
8. The other objection regarding one of the two keys not being supplied does not constitute fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. In such cases the OP should have settled the claim on non standard basis as per decision of NC in Amlender Sahoo vs. OIC (2010) 4 SCC 536.
9. In view of the above discussion the OP is directed to pay 75% of the IDV with interest  @6% p.a from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment.
10. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
11. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                             MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

 

•