Delhi

South Delhi

CC/113/2011

SWAPNIL SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM -II UDYOG SADAN C C 22 23
QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016
 
Complaint Case No. CC/113/2011
 
1. SWAPNIL SHARMA
R/O 14 FIRST FLOOR POCKET 8 SECTOR-24 ROHINI DELHI 110085
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
C-302 THIRD FLOOR ANSAL PLAZA HUDCO PLACE ANDRES GAN NEW DELHI 110049
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. N K GOEL PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. NAINA BAKSHI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
none
 
For the Opp. Party:
none
 
Dated : 17 May 2017
Final Order / Judgement

                                 Sh. Swapnil Sharma      V/s    HDFC, Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

 

Case No. 113/11

17.05.17

Present:        None

 

Complainant’s case, in brief, is that his Alto Car bearing registration No.DL8CNA 1544 insured with the OP under policy No.VP00418363000100 was stolen from his possession on 15.06.2009 at about 9.20 p.m. when he was coming back from his office and reached Rithala Gas Godown, Sector-24, Rohini by some persons.  He lodged an FIR No. 184 dated 15.06.09 at P.S. Vijay Vihar which was sent untraced on 29.08.09. The complainant submitted all the documents to the OP for releasing the claim but to no effect. It is pleaded that the complainant has been paying monthly installment of Rs.5200/- per month and has to commute by hiring a taxi or auto by spending Rs.300/- per day. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to pay to him Rs.2 lacs alongwith interest @ 10% per month from September, 2009 till the date of payment, Rs.5 lacs on account of physical hardship, monetary loss and mental agony and Rs.33000/- towards litigation cost.

In the written version the OP has inter-alia pleaded that the complainant had acted negligently by leaving the ignition key of the vehicle in the vehicle and leaving the vehicle unattended; that the complainant failed to tender both the original keys of the vehicle as supplied by manufacturer.  It is further stated that the complainant did not cooperate with the surveyor of the OP and also did not supply all the necessary documents which has been mentioned by the surveyor in the report submitted to the OP. According to the OP, the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant has not filed rejoinder to the reply of OP.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On other hand, affidavit of Sh. Praman Preet Singh Gujraj, Claims Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

 Written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.

None has been appearing on behalf of the Complainant since 09.12.14. Therefore, notice for pairavi was issued to him for 09.03.17 which was wrongly delivered at Hauz Khas post office and a fresh notice was issued to him at his Rohini address for today. Notice issued to him vide dispatch No.750 dated 18.04.17 has been received back with the postal report “left”. Therefore,  the complainant is not available at his last known address. The matter is mature for final disposal. Therefore, we proceed to decide the case on merits.

The copy of the FIR is Ex. CW-1/A. It inter-alia mentions that the car of the complainant was hit by a Maruti car 800 CC ; that two persons got down from that car and hence apprehending that they will beat him the Complainant left his mobile phone, office bag containing papers and the key in the car and got down; that when he came 40 yds. back those two boys started his car and ran away. The copy of the untrace report is Ex. CW-1/C. The same is not at all legible and readable. Therefore, the action taken by the police on the FIR of the complainant is not made known to us. We are surprised to know that despite seeing that the two men after alighting from their Maruti car had started coming towards him,   the complainant left his mobile phone, bag containing documents and key of the car in the ignition board and walked 40 yards back.  Therefore, it seems to be an unbelievable story. Moreover, the complainant has not led any evidence to show that he had cooperated with the surveyor of the OP and given to the surveyor all the necessary documents. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the repudiation of the claim in question of the complainant by the OP was justified.  Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties through speed post.  File be consigned to record room.

 

(Naina Bakshi)                                                                                                                             (N. K. Goel)

Member                                                                                                                                         President

 

Announced on 17.05.17.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. N K GOEL]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. NAINA BAKSHI]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.