Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/800/2017

Navreet Kaur Sandhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vikas Rohal Adv.

05 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	800 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	13.10.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	05.10.2018

 

 

 

 

 

Navreet Kaur Sandhu, D/o Sh.Major Singh Sandhu, resident of H.No.3191, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh.    

 

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

1]  HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company (Regional office), SCO No.124-125,   Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its official/authorised person. 

 

2]  HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company (Issuing Office), Ist Floor, SCO 11, Choti Barandari, Patiala, through its Official/authorised person.

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

 

Argued By:     Sh.Vikas Rohal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Nitish Sanghi, Adv. for Opposite Party

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

         The case of the complainant, in brief is that, she got her car Nissan Terrano XL D Plus, bearing Regd. No.CH-01-BK-8000, insured with OPs vide Insurance Policy No.2311201464652300000, effective from 5.8.2016 to 4.8.2017. It is averred that the said vehicle met with an accident on 29.11.2016, as a result, the vehicle was badly damaged, so it was taken to M/s ABA Motors Pvt. Ltd on 01.12.2016 for repairs.  It is also averred that the complainant also intimated this fact to Opposite Parties and explained the whole incident.  It is submitted that the complainant submitted the claim of Rs.1,06,250/- with OPs along with all requisite documents, but the OPs kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other.  Ultimately, the complainant sent legal notice on 14.9.2017 to the Opposite Parties, but they neither replied to the notice nor made payment of the claim amount.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. 

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant intentionally concealed the fact that her vehicle till 29.11.2016 i.e. on the date of accident, was not bearing the permanent registration number and thus, it was being driven in sheer violation of law as well as insurance policy.  It is submitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question on 5.8.2016 with temporary registration, which got expired after lapse of one month, and applied for permanent registration of vehicle, after occurrence of the damage, only on 31.1.2017 and thereafter lodged the claim on 2.12.2016 alleging that on 29.11.2016, the vehicle met with an accident.  It is also submitted that the claim so lodged by the complainant was thoroughly investigated by the authorised Surveyor, who submitted his report dated 14.2.2017, apprising the Company that the vehicle of the insured was not registered at the time of accident.  Therefore, as per the policy terms & conditions, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 10.2.2017 (Ann.R-5).

 

3]       Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the facts as alleged in the complaint.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant had purchased Car Nissan Terrano XL D Plus on 5.8.2016, which was insured with Opposite Parties vide Private Car Package Policy No.2311 2014 6465 2300 000, valid from 5.8.2016 to 4.8.2017. The temporary registration number of the car was valid for one month from the date of sale of the car i.e. 5.8.2016.  The complainant applied to the Registering & Licensing Authority, Transport Department, UT, Chandigarh and deposited Rs.20,000/- vide Receipt dated 17.10.2016 for allotment of registration mark of her choice.  Consequent thereto, the permanent registration of the vehicle was issued by the Registering & Licensing Authority, UT, Chandigarh on 31.1.2017. 

 

7]       The car of the complainant met with an accident on 29.11.2016 well within the valid insurance period. The complainant had every legal, valid bonafide right to use the vehicle on 29.11.2016, which cannot termed to be unauthorized in any of the terms, as interpreted by the Opposite Parties.

 

8]       The Surveyor Report by Anuj Jain, Surveyor of the Opposite Parties, seems to be biased.  All parts damaged in the accident for which the claim has been filed, has wrongly been rejected by the Surveyor in his report, as detailed below:-

 

S.N.	Parts Name	Estimate	Assessment
			Plastic	Metal	Glass	Total
1	TRIM RR TANK	3169.95		3169.95
2	SEALANT	1237.56	1237.56
3	EMBLEM TRUNK	1638.00	1638.00
4	EMBLEM TRUNK	2246.00	2246.00
5	MONO GRAM	1568.00	1568.00
6	DOOR BACK	11787.84		11787.84
7	LOCK	2451.00		2451.00
8	SKIRT RR	4719.55		4719.55
9	LAMP TRUNK RR	1723.00	1723.00
10	LAMP RR RHS	2782.00	2782.00
11	RR BUMBER	2262.00	2262.00
12	BODY SEALANT	1237.00	1237.00
13	ABS RR BUMBER	1032.48		1032.48
14	STRIP TRUNK LID	5120.00		5120.00
15	RR LHS FOG	343.00	343.00
16	RR RHS FOG	343.00	343.00
17	MONO GRAM RHS	2071.00	2071.00
	Total	45731.38	17450.56	28280.82	0.00	4531.38
	VAT 13.125%	60002.24	2290.39	3711.86	0.00	6002.24
		51733.62	19740.95	31992.67	0.00	51733.62
	50% DEP. ON PLASTIC PART & NO DEP. ON METAL PARTS		9870.47	0.00	0.00	9870.47
			9870.47	31992.67	0.00	41863.14

 

         The parts shown at Sr.No.2,3,4,5,9,10,11,12,15, & 16 categorized as  ‘Plastic’ is wrong and untenable.  These parts damaged in the accident are essential part of the car and liable to be compensated under the insurance claim.

 

9]       The complainant has spent an amount of Rs.1,06,250/- for repair of the car from ABA Motors Pvt. Ltd. paid vide Invoice dated 20.1.2017 (Page No.12). The claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,06,250/- on account of damage to her new vehicle in question on 29.11.2016 is legal, valid and maintainable against the OPs with reference to Insurance Policy No.2311201464652300000. The decision of the OPs regarding repudiation of the claim of the complainant is untenable and as such quashed.  Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved.

 

10]      Keeping in view the above facts & circumstances of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is hereby allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,06,250/- towards repair cost of the insured vehicle, with interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 20.1.2017 (the date of payment) along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced

5^th October, 2018                                                           Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER