Haryana

Karnal

CC/305/2018

Sushila Golen - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Navdeep Pal Singh

26 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 305 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 12.11.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 26.11.2019

 

Sushila Golen, age 40 years, wife of Shri Rajinder Singh Golen, resident of House no.50, New Ramesh Nagar Extn. Near Gas Agency, at present House no.736, Sector 6, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.SCO 237, Second floor, Sector 12, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                   …..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 Navdeep Pal Singh 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 got insured her vehicle New Sonata 2.4 GDI AT car bearing registration no.HR26BY-4777 with the opposite party (OP), vide policy no.2311202046279500001 for the period commencing from 31.12.2017 to 30.12.2018 under policy titled as Private Car Comprehensive Policy. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.16,00,000/-. On 23.06.2018 the husband of the complainant, namely Rajinder (who is holding a valid driving licence) was going from his petrol pump Rasina, Kaithal to the office of his C.A. at Panipat, on the abovesaid car through Munak Canal road to Refinary Panipat and when he reached in the mid of refinery on the said road, all of a sudden a massive fire broke in the car and he, in order to save his life, came out of the car and then telephonically informed the police on emergency help line no.100, the massive fire in car also caused burning in eye and hands of husband of complainant and lateron he medically examined in this regard. The fire brigade came at the spot on 23.06.2018 and stifled (stop/control the fire) and in the fire report of Haryana fire service, it was a serious fire due to shorting of wire and it was also reported by them that the car was completely burnt and hence beyond repair and useless. In this regard a DDR was also lodged at Police Station Matlauda (Panipat) on 28.06.2018 and as per the investigation done by the police qua the fire it was found that car had caught fire. The officials of the Fire Station, Panipat also lodged entries in this regard and gave fire report wherein it has been corroborated by them the vehicle has been completely burnt due to fire as a result of wiring short. The burnt car was taken from the spot to the auto workshop at Karnal through crane and a payment of Rs.3500/- was given by the complainant to the owner of Kaka Crane Service, Karnal. The intimation regarding the accident was made on 23.06.2018 to the officials of the OP telephonically and as a result of which surveyor was appointed and requisite formalities were completed by the complainant and the necessary documents as demanded by the OP were submitted. As per the estimate a  sum of Rs.25,26,387/- was to be spent on repairing the said car but OP rather than getting it repaired asked the complainant to furnish consent for replacement of the vehicle by old Sonata Car being total damaged but since in the said incident husband of complainant escaped miraculously due to defective machinery of car, the complainant and her family members decided to purchase another car of another company and they have purchased the same and hence are not in need of replacement vehicle as being provided by the OP. The OP declined the claim of the complainant on 26.07.2018 by not paying the insured value of the vehicle and rather than insisting on taking their consent for a replacement vehicle of the said company which is contrary to reason that any person who has been saved the grace of God in such a major fire would be re-driving such vehicle again. It is choice of the complainant either to get replaced vehicle or get insured declared vehicle or get insured declared value of the vehicle and OP cannot force and insist for either of the one. At the time of lodging of the claim complainant requested the OP for releasing the IDV of the vehicle but OP did not do so. 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 raising preliminary objections with regard to claim being premature; complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the claim of the complainant is closed and not repudiated as the complainant failed to provide the consent for the replacement of the vehicle which was sought from the complainant. The OP vide letter dated 26.07.2018 and 12.11.2018 have been requesting the complainant for his consent for the replacement of the vehicle. However, the complainant failed to provide any consent and thus the claim has been not processed. Thus, the complaint is pre-matured and is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the insurance policy is the policy of indemnification where the loss suffered by the insured is indemnified subject to the assessment of liability as assessed by the IRDA licensed surveyor. The indemnification is done after the insured submits the consent for the settlement of the claim. However, in the present case the complainant has failed to provide the consent for the replacement of the vehicle and thus the claim is not settled due to failure on the part of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant cannot take the benefit of his own wrong. OP through letter dated 26.07.2018 and 12.11.2018 asking the complainant to sent your consent but he failed to submit the same. 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 her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19 and closed the evidence on 28.05.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Shweta Pokhriyal Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 7.11.2019.

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 complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR26BY-4777 with the OP, vide policy no.2311202046279500001, valid from 31.12.2017 to 30.12.2018. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.16,00,000/-. The said vehicle got fire on 23.06.2018 at about 5.05 p.m. in the area of Munak Canal road to Refinery Panipat. In this incident the insured car was totally damaged. The DDR in this regard was got registered at Police Station Matlauda (Panipat) and claim for the damaged vehicle was got lodged with the OP. As per estimate a sum of Rs.25,26,387/- was to be spent on repairing the said car but OP rather than getting it repaired asked the complainant to furnish consent for replacement of vehicle by old Sonata Car being totally damaged but complainant did not agree to replace the same car. Therefore, OP declined the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 26.07.2018.

7.             The case of the OP, in brief, is that after receiving the intimation from the complainant regarding the fire of the insured car, OP appointed the surveyor. The surveyor submitted his report and as per the surveyor assessment, the vehicle was major loss, therefore, it was observed by the surveyor that the replacement of the vehicle is the best mode of claim settlement. So, the complainant was asked to furnish consent of replacement of vehicle but complainant failed to give his consent and thus the claim was closed and not repudiated.

8.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question caught fire and got completely burnt during the subsistence of the policy. DDR Ex.C3 dated 28.06.2018 was got lodged by the complainant. On receipt of intimation, OP, appointed and IRDA licensed Surveyor for assessment of loss. The surveyor submitted his report and as per the surveyor assessment, the vehicle was major loss, therefore, replacement of the vehicle is the best way for settlement of the claim. The OP sent the letter dated 26.07.2018(Ex.R2) and 12.11.2018 (Ex.R1), vide which OP conveyed the complainant that as per surveyor assessment the vehicle is major loss and as per his opinion the replacement of vehicle is the best mode of claim settlement.

9.             The complainant had received letters Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 but she did not agree for replacement of the vehicle since she want to take the insured value of the vehicle. She requested the OP to pay the insured value of the vehicle but OP did not pay the same and declined the claim of the complainant.

10.            It is not disputed that OP is ready to replace the vehicle in question but complainant is not ready to take the same vehicle again when once life of husband of complainant once save luckily due to fire in the vehicle due to manufacturing defect.  In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that when a vehicle gets fire due to any mechanical or manufacturing defect resulting in unsafely and danger to life and in such situation no one would like to replace or purchase such vehicle for second time. So, in our view OP cannot bound the complainant for replacement of the vehicle. Hence complainant is entitled for IDV of the vehicle in question.

11.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.16,00,000/- i.e. IDV of the vehicle in question to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.  It is made clear if the abovesaid amount is not paid within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its realization. The complainant is also directed to get transfer the vehicle in question in the name of OP and also deposit the salvage of the vehicle with OP. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:26.11.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

               

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                       Member