Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/11/2021

Baldev Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

11 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION; FATEHABAD

          C.C.No.11 of 2021.                 Date of Instt.:05.01.2021 Date of Order: 11.09.2023

Baldev Raj son of Shri Chamba Ram resident of House No.187, Gali No.4, Satish Colony, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

..Complainant.

          Versus

1.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company  Limited through its Managing Director, registered and corporate office Ist Floor, HDFC House 165-166, Backbay Reclamation, H.T.Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

2.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Branch Office 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, Mumbai-400059.

          ..Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Before:        Sh. Rajbir Singh, President.                                                               Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member.                                                             Sh.K.S.Nirania, Member

Present:       Complainant in person.                                                                      Sh.U.K.Gera, counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT;

                   By way of this complaint, the complainant has submitted that he is owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR22M-7723 which was insured with OPs vide policy No.2311100328951000000 having validity for the period 06.07.2018 to 05.07.2019; that on 16.02.2019 the vehicle in question met with an accident; that the complainant intimated about the accident to the insurance company; that the surveyor inspected the vehicle  and clicked the photographs of the same;  that  on the instructions of the complainant, the complainant got his car repaired from Narian Auto Garage, Hisar Road, Fatehabad  by spending a sum of Rs.45,166/-;  that the complainant submitted all the requisite documents alongwith bill to the Ops with a request to make the payment of claim but to no effect; that thereafter the Ops refused to settle the claim of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant made a statement on dated 22.02.22 that his complaint may kindly be read into his evidence

2.                          On notice, Ops appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that  the accident was occurred on 16.02.2019 and the claim was intimated to the replying Ops on 18.02.2019 which is clear cut violation of Clause 1 of the policy; that the surveyor after minutely inspecting the vehicle gave its report and in its report  he has mentioned that the damages claimed in the alleged accident are not related to the cause of action as reported in the claim form that under the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as No Claim which was intimated to the complainant by way of letter dated 06.03.2019. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. In the end, prayer for dismissing the complaint has been made.  Ops in evidence have tendered affidavit of Vivek Yadva as Ex.RW/A with documents Annexure RW/1 to Annexure RW/7.

3.                          Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for appearing OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

4.                          Undisputedly, the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR22M-7723 and the same was insured with Ops. The complainant has come with the plea that his vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy; therefore, it is the boundened duty of the Ops to pay the loss suffered by him on account of damage of the vehicle but the Ops did not do so.  

5.                          Admittedly, surveyor was appointed by the Ops on getting the intimation qua the damage of the insured vehicle.  During the course of arguments learned counsel for the Ops has produced the report of surveyor on the case file. Perusal of said report reveals that the surveyor had assessed the net payable loss to the tune of Rs.37380.13.  Though the Ops have specifically taken the plea the damaged to the vehicle as claimed in the claim form is unrelated to the cause of accident but there is nothing on the case file to show that as to on what basis the surveyor had reached on this conclusion.  It is proved on the case file that the damaged to the vehicle occurred during the currency of the policy for which the insurance company had received the premium, therefore, it is the duty of the insurance company to indemnify the loss as assessed by the surveyor in this report.  The other ground qua delayed intimation does not appear intentionally and the Ops have failed to prove on the case file as to what loss they have suffered because the surveyor has duly inspected the vehicle, therefore, the plea of delayed intimation does not sustain anymore. On this point reliance can be taken from the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in  case titled as Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & another 2020(1) RCR (Civil) page 981 in which it was held that delay in intimating insurance company is no ground to deny the claim and claim was given to the aggrieved party.

6.                          It is a settled proposition of law that Surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside, being important piece of evidence, unless there is cogent and convincing evidence.  In this regard we rely upon a judgment titled as United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, CPJ 2008 (2) page (NC) page 182  wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is an independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938.   Further, in the present matter, the surveyor in his report has clearly mentioned net loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.37380/-. Therefore,  we are of the considered opinion that the end of justice would met if we direct the Ops  to make the payment of Rs.37380/- to the complainant on account of loss suffered by him due to damaging of vehicle in an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

 7.                         Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the present complaint is allowed and the appearing OP is directed to make the payment of Rs.37380/- (as per the report of surveyor) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.11,000/- in lump sum for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days failing which the awarded amount would carry 9 % interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

8.                          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                           Dated: 11.09.2023

                  

          (K.S.Nirania)               (Harisha Mehta)                     (Rajbir Singh)                      Member                                 Member                               President