Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 99
Instituted on : 26.02.2019
Decided on : 02.04.2024.
Vijay Saharan S/o Sh. Om Parkash Saharan R/o Flat no. 602, Tower-5 Malibu Town, Gurgaon at present H.No. 10, Sector-4, Rohtak.
..............Complainant.
Vs.
- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited Office No. 208, 2nd Floor Sewa Corporate, Park Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Gurugram through its Divisional Manager.
- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited 3rd Floor, 35 Central Market, Phase-1 Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052 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 Ashwani Phougat, 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 the complainant is registered owner of vehicle i.e. Skoda Laura Carbearing registration no.HR-26CD-3300 and same was insured with opposite parties vide policy no.2311201585642500000, which was valid from10.12.2016 to 09.12.2017 for IDV Value of Rs.12,00,000/-. On 26.07.2017, the vehicle in question caught fire in the area of Village-Badli, District Jhajjjar. The complainant has informed the fire brigade, but till then the vehicle was completely burn. A D.D. No. 26 dated 26.07.2017 was got entered in this regard. The complainant approached to the officials of opposite parties to disburse the claim amount in his favour. But they did not disburse the amount of claim. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed todisburse an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of incident till the date of actual realization of the whole of amount and Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment as well as Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, noticeswere issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 in their reply has submitted thatthe alleged incident of fire was intimated to the answering opposite party on 27.07.2017. After that, they appointed an IRDA licensed Surveyor as mandated under Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938. An investigator cum forensic expert was also appointed to examine the loss to ascertain genuine cause of the fire. During the investigation and forensic analysis done by the expert it was found that the fire was not accidental in nature but was incendiary. As such the fire did not broke out due to self ignition. In view of these facts and submissions the claim was rightly repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 28.09.2017 stating that the fire was not accidental in nature and was beyond the scope of the policy.Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the party of insurance company. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/Aand documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on 09.09.2021.Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also tendered documents Ex.C8 to Ex.C12 in additional evidence and closed his evidence on 02.04.2024. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 and 2 has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A& Ex. RW1/B and documents Ex.R1 to Ex. R5 and has closed his evidence on 30.05.2022.
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, claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R5 dated 28.09.2017 on the ground that they deputed investigator for the investigation and verification of the claim for fire damages and it was found that fire origin was not accidental in nature. At the time of arguments one more plea has been taken by ld. Counsel for the opposite parties that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present case as the policy was issued at Delhi, incident happened at District Jhajjar and the complainant is resident of Gurgaon. No document is placed on record to prove the jurisdiction of this Commission. On the other hand, at the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record some documents e.g. copy of voter card Ex.C8, copy of Aadhar Card as Ex.C9 and copy of passport Ex.C10 & Ex.C11 to prove the fact that he is resident of Distt. Rohtak. All these documents shows that complainant is resident of Distt. Rohtak. Hence this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present case. Regarding the other plea of opposite parties that claim is not genuine, we have perused the report of investigator. No document has been placed on record to prove the fact that the investigator visited the spot and made the spot inspection. Complainant was never called for investigation. The date of loss is 26.07.2017 and the investigator started investigation on 03.08.2017, 04.08.2017 and 02.09.2017 and submitted his report on dated 18.09.2017. But no exact date of spot verification is mentioned in this report. During that period the vehicle might have been washed by rain. Hence it was not possible to give exact cause of fire after so many days. He merely on the basis of photographs of vehicle has given his imaginary report. Date wise event report is not given that when the investigator received instruction from the opposite party, when he visited the spot and prepared the spot survey. He merely submitted photographs showing that they examined the vehicle by reaching inside the vehicle but no date and time or mode of visiting the spot has been mentioned in this report. Even the same is also not mentioned in the affidavit of the investigator placed on record as Ex.RW1/B.The report is based on the imaginary grounds. Hence the repudiation of claim on the basis of investigation report is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. The vehicle in question was total loss due to fire. As such opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount i.e. IDV of vehicle after deducting the salvage value of vehicle which we have assessed as Rs.50000/-. At the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record copy of letter issued by Sundaram Finance Limited to prove the fact that the loan agreement has been terminated.Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay the amount of Rs.1150000/-(Rupees 12000000/- IDV less Rs.50000/- as salvage) to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1150000/-(Rupees eleven lac fifty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the first complaint i.e.26.02.2019 till its realization and to pay 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. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. 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:
02.04.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
