Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 156
Instituted on : 04.03.2020.
Decided on : 16.10.2023
Bijender Singh S/o Sh. Sri Ram R/o H.No. 1025/23 DLF Colony, Rohtak ..............Complainant.
Vs.
- HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Regd. & Corporate Office, 1st Floor, 165-66, Backbay Reclamation, H.T.Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai through its Manager.
- HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Pizza Hut, Opp. Sessions Judge House, Near Ashoka Chowk, Delhi Road, Rohtak at present 1st Floor, SCF-13 HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001 through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Sumit Siwach, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of the vehicle car bearing registration no. HR/12H/9055 and it was insured for the period of 02.09.2018 to 01.09.2019 from the opposite party vide policy no.2311100230035601000. It is further submitted that the alleged vehicle was stolen on 23.11.2018 and the said incident was told to the police and FIR No.368 dated 24.11.2018 was lodged. The intimation of the same was also given to the opposite party and they asked the complainant to come after getting the untraced report. They also refused to accept his written intimation regarding theft of the vehicle. Thereafter the complainant applied for insurance claim vide claim No.C230019203957 and submitted all the required documents to the opposite party’s officials. The complainant requested the opposite parties many times to disburse his amount but they did not give any heed to the request of complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the insured amount of the stolen vehicle i.e. Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of theft of vehicle till its actual realization, Rs. 2,00,000/- for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle in question had been stolen on 23.11.2018 and FIR to the same effect has been got lodged on 24.11.2018. It is denied that the complainant had intimated the police authority regarding the theft of the vehicle on Police No.100 on 23.11.2018. It is further submitted that the claim intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle has been given in the office of answering respondent on 05.08.2019 i.e. after a span of 254 days from the alleged theft of the vehicle. Hence the claim Hence of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the opposite party as there has been delay of 254 days in intimating them about the alleged theft of the vehicle in question and no reasonable justification was given by the insured for delayed intimation. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the party of opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 be read on behalf of opposite party No.2.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and has closed his evidence on dated 30.11.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 04.10.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, as per the written statement, the policy period is mentioned as 02.09.2017 to 01.09.2018 and the IDV of the vehicle is mentioned as Rs.54774/- whereas the complainant has filed the present complaint for the policy period 02.09.2018 to 01.09.2019. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter dated 04.12.2019 placed on record as Ex.R4 on the ground that : “As per written statement furnished by the complainant the theft of the insured vehicle had happened on 23.11.2019. However, the intimation of the theft has been given to the insurer on 05.08.2019 i.e. after a delay of 254 days”. As per the statement of complainant attached with the investigation report Ex.R3, the delay of intimation has been very much explained by the complainant before the investigating agency of the insurance company. He intimated the company after receiving the FIR and untraced report. As per copy of PCR report attached with the attached with Untrace report Ex.C5, the Police was informed on No.100 on the same day i.e. 24.11.2018 and also lodged FIR immediately. No doubt there is delay of 254 days in intimating the opposite party but the FIR was lodged on the same day. Hence the whole claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated on this ground. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the authorities cited by ld. counsel for the complainant in order dated 10th August 2021 of Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in First Appeal No.1358/2013 titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Raghunath Sharma and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1069 of 2022 case titled as Jain Construction Company vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., as per which Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded 75% claim of IDV and has further held that: “Mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be ground to deny claim of insured”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that repudiation of whole claim by the opposite party on the ground of delayed intimation is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite parties are liable to pay the 75% claim to the complainant as per IDV of the vehicle. As per policy, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.50000/-.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay 75% of IDV i.e. to pay Rs.37500/-(Rupees thirty seven thousand and five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.03.2020 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to complete the formalities i.e. to submit the signed form no.29-30, indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party No.1 shall comply with the order dated 16.10.2023 of this Commission within one month. Complainant is also directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.10.2023
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
.........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
