BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 792 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 29.12.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 04.07.2011 |
Ashok Garg, House No.104, 1st Floor, GHS-13, Sector 20, Panchkula. …..Complainant V E R S U S 1] HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., 6th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (India), through its Managing Director. Regd.office, Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai-400020 (India), through its Managing Director. 2] Branch Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 124-125, 1st Floor, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. 3] HDFC Bank Ltd., Retail Asset Division, Bank House Building, Ground Floor, Plot No.28, Phase 1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager. 4] M/s Krishna Auto Sales, #177-E, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager. ……Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Sanjay Judge, Counsel for Complainant. OP No.1, 2 & 3 already ex-parte. Sh.Guarav Bhardwaj, Proxy counsel to Sh.Jagvir Sharma, Counsel for OP No.4. PER SH.P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT It is case of the complainant that he purchased a Skoda Laura 1.9 Turbo Diesel for a sum of Rs.16,84,500/- from OP No.4 vide invoice dated 7.9.2006 by getting it financed from OP No.3. The said vehicle was insured by OP No.1 & 2 vide Policy No.VP00514423000100 dated 18.9.2009, which was valid from 7.9.2009 to 6.9.2010. It is further case of the complainant that on 8.10.2009, the car in question got stolen from Chandigarh and FIR No.186, dated 14.10.2009 u/s 379 was got registered at Sector 19, Police Station, Chandigarh. Despite the untraced report submitted by the Police and duly accepted by the JMIC, Chandigarh, the OP No.1 & 2 failed to release the claim which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint. 2. Initially OP No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel but subsequently absented, hence proceeded ex-parte. 3. OP No.3 did not turn up despite service and suffered ex-parte. 4. OP No.4 filed its reply and pleaded that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint against it and the reliefs sought in the complaint relates to OPs NO.1 and 2. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 5. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record. 7. In his evidence, the complainant has placed on record the copy of the insurance policy, copy of the FIR, copy of untraced report submitted by SHO, Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh and the order dated 08.04.2010 of the JMIC, Chandigarh vide which the untraced report submitted by the police has been accepted. All the aforesaid evidence corroborates the averments of the complaint made in his complaint. 8. Admittedly, the vehicle in question has been stolen on 08.10.2009 and the police already submitted the untraced report which was also accepted by the Learned JMIC vide its order dated 08.04.2010 despite all this the OPs No.1 and 2 have failed to settle the genuine claim of the complainant which itself amounts of deficiency in service. 9. Admittedly, the OPs No.1 and 2 despite service did not care to contest the case and as such it can be concluded without any hesitation that either the OPs No.1 and 2 admit the claim of the complainant in toto or have nothing to say in the matter. Moreover, the evidence led by the complainant has also gone un-rebutted and uncontroverted. 10. However, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the OPs No.3 and 4, therefore, the complaint qua them stands dismissed. 11. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and the OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to pay sum insured of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization to OP No.3 as the vehicle in question is hypothecated with the OP No.3-Bank, within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy. The OP-3-Bank is also directed to adjust the entire amount so received from the Ops No.1 and 2 in the loan account of the complainant and after adjusting the same, the excess amount, if any, be refunded to the complainant forthwith. The Ops No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 12. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | Sd/- | Sd/- | 04.07.2011 | [Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | [P.D.Goel] | | Member | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
