Haryana

Karnal

CC/343/2018

Nasib - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Kunar Rana

24 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No. 343 of 2018

                                                         Date of instt.06.12.2018

                                                         Date of Decision 24.01.2020

 

Nasib, age 26 years, son of Mahabir Singh resident of House no.1823, Sector 11-12, HUDA, Panipat, Adhar no.853487151314.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Branch office SCO no.237, 2^nd floor , Sector 12, Karnal 132001 through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh…….President.

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 

 Present:  Shri Ravi Kumar Advocate for complainant.

                     Shri Sanjeev Vohra Advocate for opposite party.

                                    

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is registered owner of Motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-06S-2241. The said vehicle of the complainant was got insured with the OP, vide policy no.2312201470011900000, valid from 15.08.2016 to 14.08.2017 for sum insured of Rs.15,000/- against premium of Rs.1013/-. The complainant parked his vehicle outside the Devi Lal Park, Panipat and locked it carefully on 22.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. When he came back he did not found the vehicle at its parked place. The complainant tried to search the vehicle but it could not find anywhere. The registration certificate was also present in the vehicle. The complainant intimated the police concerned in this regard, on which the police of Police Station City Panipat got lodged the FIR no.1389 dated 22.01.2016, under section 379 IPC. Thereafter, the complainant reported the OP on 08.04.2018 in this regard. The officials of the OP registered the claim of the complainant. The complainant has submitted entire documents pertaining to the insured vehicle including claim form and untraced report to the OP. At the time of obtaining the said documents the officials of the OP assured that they will release the claim of the complainant as soon as possible but till date OP failed to release the claim of the complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.07.2018 to the OP in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version stating therein that it is admitted fact that the Two Wheeler Comprehensive Policy having policy no.231220147001190000, valid from 15.08.2016 to 14.08.2017, however, the policy is subject to the provision of IMT and policy conditions, which was never disputed by the insured. It is further stated that the complaint of the complainant is premature because the complainant never lodged/registered any claim with the OP and without registration of any claim, the complainant cannot claim any compensation from the OP. So, question of refuse to settle the claim or repudiation of the claim does not arise. It is further stated that complaint is barred by limitation and same is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 12.09.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Shweta Pokhriyal Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 03.01.2020.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration HR-06S-2241. The said vehicle of the complainant was got insured with the OP, vide policy no.2312201470011900000, valid from 15.08.2016 to 14.08.2017 for sum insured of Rs.15,000/-. The said vehicle was stolen on 22.10.2016 qua which an FIR no.1389 dated 22.10.2016 was registered under section 379 IPC in the Police Station City, Panipat. After the theft of his vehicle, complainant lodged the claim with the OP and requested for paying the compensation amount but till date same has not been given despite repeated requests made to OP.

7.             The case of the OP, in brief, is that the complaint is premature because the complainant never lodged/registered any claim with the OP and without registration of any claim, the complainant cannot claim any compensation from the OP. So, question of refuse to settle the claim or repudiation of the claim does not arise.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant insured the motorcycle in question with the OP and the same was stolen on 22.10.2016. The main objection of the OP is that the complainant never lodged/registered the claim with the OP. The claim of the complainant was not released by the OP on the ground that complainant did not submit the requisitioned documents as well as information to the OP in writing till date and claim of the complainant is pre-mature. Thus, we are of the considered view at this stage OP is not deficient in service.

9.             In view of above observation, we dispose of the present complaint with the direction to the complainant to lodge the claim with the OP and supply all the documents as required by the OP to settle the claim of the complainant. We also direct the OP to settle the claim of the complainant within one month after submissions of the documents by the       complainant. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 24.01.2020

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

             (Vineet Kaushik)         (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                     Member                          Member