DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Dalvir Singh son of Jugraj Singh, resident of Wajidke Kalan, Tehsil and District Barnala.

                   ---Complainant

V E R S U S

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Limited, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:      SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU             MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. Harminderjit Singh, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Hitender Kansal, proxy Counsel for Sh. P.M. Goyal, Counsel for Opposite Parties

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the Complainant got his new Mahindra Bolero SLX model BM726 F2 x H.74, bearing Temp. Regn. No. PB-10-CB-T-7985 comprehensively insured with the Opposite Party on 26.01.2010, vide Policy Annexure C-4, valid up to 25.01.2011, having IDV of Rs.5.20 lacs. The Complainant claims that on 29.01.2010, the said vehicle was stolen from the parking of Over 7 Seez Palace, Jagroan. An F.I.R. was lodged with the P.S. Jagroan, District Ludhiana (Rural), but the vehicle could not be traced (F.I.R. at Annex.C-5). A claim was lodged with the Opposite Party, but when nothing positive could come out, a legal notice dated 03.12.2010 (Annexure C-6) was served upon it. However, to the utter surprise of the Complainant, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 28.3.2011, repudiated the claim without considering the merits on false & flimsy grounds (Annexure C-9). Hence, this complaint. 

                   The complaint of the Complainant is not verified, but is supported by his detailed affidavit.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

3.                Opposite Party in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the policy was subject to terms & conditions of the policy. The answering Opposite Party, immediately, on the receipt of the information of the loss, appointed Mr. Anurag Midha, Investigator, who investigated the matter and submitted his report which is at Annexure R-1.  It is also pleaded that during the process of the claim, it transpired that the Complainant had taken an insurance policy from the company on 26.1.2010 by submitting a cover note from the National Insurance Company claiming to have validity till 25.1.2010. However, the said cover note was a forged cover note as upon investigation from the National Insurance Co., it transpired that the said cover note was expired on 26.8.2009, as such the Complainant had given wrong information in order to avoid inspection of the vehicle. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question was lost prior to 26.1.2010 and the policy in question was taken by showing forged document, hence, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 28.3.2011 (Annexure R-2). Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

                   The reply of Opposite Party is not verified, but is supported by a detailed affidavit of S.C. Vats, Claim Manager (Legal), HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Limited.

4.                Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Party, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

5.                The present complaint filed by the Complainant is on the ground that he is the owner of Mahindra Bolero SLX model BM726 F2 x H.74, bearing Temp. Regn. No. PB-10-CB-T-7985 and he had subscribed for an insurance policy from the Opposite Party on 26.01.2010, vide Policy No. 2311200004213300000, valid upto midnight of 25.01.2011. The said vehicle was also financed by M/s Sundram Finance Limited. The vehicle in question was got stolen from outside a marriage palace at Jagroan and report to this effect was immediately lodged with the police station Jagraon on 29.01.2010. The Complainant claims that due intimation was also given to the Insurance Company about the loss of the vehicle. However, the Complainant is aggrieved of the repudiation of his claim vide Annexure R-2 dated 28.3.2011. Having failed in eliciting any favourable response from the side of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has preferred the present complaint. 

6.                We have perused the repudiation letter (Annexure R-2), wherein two basic points are mentioned with regard to the policy issued to the Complainant, as well as about the delayed intimation about the happening of the theft to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party claims that the Complainant had intentionally given wrong information about the previous insurance policy at the time of subscribing the insurance cover, under which the present claim has been lodged. This fact came to light, when Mr. Anurag Midha, the special investigator, appointed to look into the aspect of the claim lodged by the Complainant. The investigator, in its report, dated 27.01.2011 (Annexure R-1), has expressed surprise that the Policy No. mentioned by the Complainant, on the basis of which fresh insurance was issued, on investigation was found to have been issued for some other period, and not for the period it was shown.  The investigator has categorically stated that the said cover note bearing no. 400509224028 was actually issued for the same vehicle on the date of its purchase i.e. on 27.08.2008 and was valid up to 26.08.2009. However, the investigator has blamed the Complainant for making changes in the date of its issue, as well as the change in the period of its validity, so as to avail the fresh policy, under which the present claim was lodged, meaning thereby, that the Complainant has actually supplied wrong information at the time of purchasing the insurance policy given by Opposite Party.    

7.                Secondly, another issue raised by the Opposite Party in their letter Annexure R-2, is that the Complainant had intimated the Opposite Party about the happening of the theft of his vehicle after more than 160 days i.e. the Complainant had himself failed to intimate the Opposite Party, immediately, as was required under the terms and conditions of the policy. While perusing Annexure C-4, which is the insurance policy, on the right hand lower end of this document, it is clearly mentioned that “in case of any claim, please call us at our 24 hrs call centre number, in the even of an accident, the insured should inform the company immediately to arrange spot survey”, along with this a Toll Free No. 1800 2 700 700 is also found mentioned on the right hand top corner of the same document.  Hence, the Complainant while having informed the Police, should have also informed the insurance company about the happening of the theft of his vehicle, so that the insurance company, at its own end, could initiate investigations. The Complainant did not bring on record any cogent evidence to substantiate that he had, immediately, informed the insurance company. Though the Complainant did inform the Opposite Party, but the same was at a much belated stage, and as per the admission of the Opposite Party, it was reported to it on 27.08.2010. The Complainant did not bring any other document on record, to falsify the version of the Opposite Party, or to fortify his claim about immediate intimation to the Opposite Party.  In a similar case titled as Mohd. Mustafa V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2003) CPJ 12 (NC) the Hon’ble National Commission has held that an intimation of theft to the company after 05 months, hence the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.

8.                In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainants is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.         

9.                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18^th February, 2013.                                                                                         

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER