Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 612
Instituted on : 17.12.2018
Decided on : 29.11.2023.
Nakul Ahlawat age 22 years s/o Sh. Satbir Singh Ahlawat R/o H.No. 965/21 UttamViharAzad GarhRohtak, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited Office, 1st Floor, HDFC House 165-166, Backbay Reclamation, H.T.Parekh Marg, Church Gate, Mumbai -400020. Through its Manager.
- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited Delhi Road, 2nd Floor, Plot No.400-401 HDFC Bank Building Model Town Rohtak, Pin code 124001 through its Branch Manager Rohtak.
…….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1988
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he is having a motorcycle bearing registration no.HR12AD-6590 and the same was insured with the opposite party for the period 25.05.2018 to 24.05.2019. On 22.10.2018 the complainant was going to his house then a car was standing in a wrong manner on the road and due to imbalance of the motorcycle of the complainant, it struck against the alleged car. Due to which, the motorcycle of the complainant was badly damaged. Complainant informed the same to the opposite party and opposite party asked the complainant to park the vehicle in the workshop of the opposite party. Complainant took his vehicle to the workshop of S.K.Jain Motors. The surveyor inspected the alleged vehicle and assured the complainant that the claim will be passed soon. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, opposite parties have not passed the claim of the complainant. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.90000/- alongwith Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted thaton the receipt of claim intimation, opposite parties appointed an IRDA approved surveyor, namely M/s Innovative Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessor private limited to assess the loss qua the vehicle in question. Thereafter, the surveyor after minute inspection filed his survey report with the observations that damages of the insured vehicle does not correlate with the cause of accident mentioned in the claim form. Based upon the report of surveyor, opposite parties have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 26.10.2018 duly served upon the complainant as actual damages does not commensurate with the loss detailed notified to the company. The observation made by the surveyor are herein as under:-
“During survey we do not found any accidental impact on insured’s vehicle, all the damages were wear and tear damages”.
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.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and closed his evidence on 10.10.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/5, also tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A in additional evidence and closed his additional evidence on 02.11.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties vide their letter Ex.RW1/5 dated 26.10.2018 on the ground that “damages of the insured vehicle does not correlate with the cause of accident mentioned in the claim form”. We have perused the survey report and annexed photocopy of photographs, which shows that vehicle has been partly damaged. The photograph of petrol tank itself shows that there is crack in the body of petrol tank. No old damages are shown in the survey report. Hence it is proved that there are some damages to the vehicle in question in the alleged accident. As per survey report an estimate of Rs.50406/- was submitted by M/s S.K.JainMotors in support of the above claim but the surveyor has disallowed all the parts without any sufficient reason. As the vehicle has been partly damaged, so as per our view it would be suffice to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.20000/- to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite partiesto pay an amount of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as lump sum compensation on account of damages as well as on account of deficiency in service. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) from the date of decision till its realisation to the complainant.
6. 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:
29.11.2023.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
