Haryana

Karnal

CC/50/2019

Ranvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gourav

22 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 50 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.30.01.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:22.06.2022

 

Ranvir Singh Mann, age 26 years, son of Shri Tejinder Pal Mann, resident of Kothi no.1, Randhir Lane, Karnal. Aadhar no.5169 9016 9059.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, through its General Manager, opposite mini secretariat, sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal (insurer of the car no.HR-09-A-0001).

 

2.     M/s Bhatia Motors, ITI Chowk, Karnal through its partner Shri Rajesh Bhatia.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Rishi Chalia, counsel for the complainant.

                  Shri Sanjiv Voha, counsel for the OP no.1.

                   OP no.2 exparte( vide order dated 08.03.2019) 

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got insured his car bearing registration no.HR-09-A-0001, vide policy no.2311200273930705000, valid from 02.06.2017 to 01.06.2018. The policy was a comprehensive/package policy and it was insured for Rs.10,93,500/- as IDV of the said vehicle. On 17.03.2018 the complainant brought his car to the Bhatia Motors, ITI Chowk, Karnal i.e. OP no.2 for its service. The owner of the workshop told to the complainant to take back said car tomorrow i.e. on 18.03.2018. In the early morning of 18.03.2018 the 32 vehicles alongwith the car of complainant stood in the workshop have totally burnt due to heavy electric shock of the high voltage wire.  In this accident the car alongwith other vehicles got burnt/damaged extensively and in this regard  matter was reported to the police of Police Post Model Town Karnal, vide DDR no.12 dated 18.03.2018. The said vehicle is a total loss and beyond its repair. Fire Brigade came there and they put off the fire. The complainant intimated the OP no.1 in this regard and submitted all the relevant documents. A surveyor was appointed by the OP no.1, who inspected the vehicle and also obtained all the relevant documents from the complainant. The officials of the OP no.1 assured the complainant that claim of the vehicle will be settled as early as possible but thereafter started lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and till date the claim of the complainant has not been released. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP no.1 so many times and requested to release the genuine claim of the complainant but OP no.1 flatly refused to accede the request of complainant and lastly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false and frivolous grounds. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and field written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is admitted that complainant insured his vehicle from the OP. The claim was lodged by the complainant alleged that “vehicle was at Bhatia Motors Workshop, which caught fire and his vehicle burned in fire”, on receipt of intimation, OP duly process the claim and appointed an IRDA approved surveyor in order to assess the loss and to verify the facts and genuineness of the alleged incident, who submitted his report. After perusal of the surveyor report, it become established that the vehicle at the time of accident was under the custody of workshop, i.e. Bhatia Motors, Karnal where fire caught in workshop due to electric shock in which complainant’s vehicle was also burnt. Thus, the vehicle was burnt while in the custody of the workshop. The claim of the complainant was repudiated because of the General Exception as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As per clause 2 of the General Exception, the insurance company, under the policy shall not be liable in respect of any claim arising out of any contractual liability.  As the vehicle in question was under contractual liability with M/s Bhatia Motors, so the insurance company is not liable. The motor insurance policy does not cover liability of garage owner, as such the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 08.03.2019.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of email Ex.CW1, copy of insurance policy Ex.CW2, copy of RC Ex.CW3 and closed the evidence on 22.11.2019 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shweta Pokhriyal Ex.RW1/A, copy of repudiation letter dated 16.04.2016 Ex.R1, copy of insurance policy Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 27.08.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             It is pertinent to mention here that from dated 03.12.2021 learned counsel for complainant had sought adjournments on the ground that complainant is no more and he wants to file an application for bringing the LRs on record. Inspite of availing of several opportunities, the learned counsel for the complainant still has not filed the application for bringing the LRs of the complainant on record. Furthermore, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 30.01.2019 and is still pending for adjudication. As per Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complaint is required to be decided within three months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite party. Furthermore,  Government of India has also issued directions, vide letter D.O. No.24/32/2022-CPU  dated 30.05.2022 for speedier disposal of consumer cases and reduction of old pendency. The present complaint also falls under the category of old pendency cases. The Consumer Protection Act has been enacted to provide for timely and expeditious disposal of consumer disputes and is for the protection and benefit of consumers. It would imperish the main object of the Consumer Protection Act if the present complaint is adjourned again and again for the same purpose without any cogent reason. Till date, neither counsel for the complainant nor LRs of the complainant has moved an application for impleading the LRs. It appears that LRs of the complainant are not interested in pursuing the complaint. The complainant is no more and without the LRs of the complainant, the present complaint cannot be kept pending further.

9.             In view of the above, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the LRs of the complainant, if any, is at liberty to file the fresh complaint, if so desired. The parties concerned be communicated the order accordingly, and the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:22.06.2022.

                                                                       

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member