Haryana

Karnal

27/14

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. R.M. Sharma

09 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.27 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.: 29.01.2014

                                                               Date of decision:9.5.2017

 

Raj Kumar son of Shri Ramji Lal resident of plot no.12, Station Area, Nilokheri, District Karnal now residing at Sector-8, Part-II, Urban Estate, Karnal

 

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. H.D.F.C ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, through its Authorized Signatory, Sector-12 Karnal.

2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, through its Authorized Signatory, plot no.C-9, 3^rd floor, Pearl Best Hights-II, Neta Ji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, New Delhi.

 

                                                                                     ……… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

Ms. Veena Rani….Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

                            

Present:-     Shri Ram Mehar Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Sanjiv Vohra Advocate for opposite parties.

                                       

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured his tractor  bearing registration no.HR-05V-8112  with the opposite parties, vide policy no.2316200038724301000, valid from 4.1.2012 to 3.1.2013 covering the risk of Rs.1,80,000/- plus Rs.24,300/- for trolley. On 8.5.2012 the tractor trolly caught fire near the village Kachhwa on account of fire in the fields of the farmers. Intimation was given to the police and Daily Diary Report no.26 dated 8.5.2012 was recorded. Intimation was also given to the opposite parties, who deputed the surveyor. All the legal formalities were completed and claim was lodged with the opposite parties, but his claim was declared as ‘No Claim’ on the illegal ground of violation of Motor Vehicle Act. Thereafter, he again contacted opposite parties to consider his claim, but no heed was paid to his request. Thus, the act and conduct of opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, due to which he suffered mental pain and agony apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this forum under summary jurisdiction.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that on receiving the intimation, Mr. B.B. Chawla was deputed as surveyor. As per contents of the police report two persons were sitting on the insured vehicle and the same was carrying bricks at the time of fire. As per registration of the vehicle the sitting capacity of the vehicle was only one. Claim was duly processed and the same was repudiated vide letter dated 1.9.2012 and conveyed to the complainant on 3.9.2012. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, documents Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant got insured his tractor bearing no.HR-05V-8112 alongwith trolly with the opposite parties and the same caught fire during subsistence of the policy and was badly damaged. The complainant lodged claim with the opposite parties, but the same was made as “No Claim”, vide letter dated 1.9.2012, on the ground that seating capacity of the vehicle was one whereas according to First Information Report two persons were sitting on the same at the time of accident.

7.                Learned counsel for opposite parties vehemently argued that as per Registration Certificate the seating capacity of the tractor was one person only. In the insurance policy also the seating capacity was shown as one person. However, as per the copy of the Daily Diary Report, the driver and the cleaner i.e. two persons were travelling in the tractor which was violation of Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act as well terms and conditions of policy, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly made as “No Claim”.

8.                The copy of the insurance policy Ex.O2 shows that that the tractor alongwith trolly was insured by the opposite parties for total insured declared value of Rs.2,04,300/-. The seating capacity on the tractor was mentioned as one. The copy of the Daily Diary Report Ex.C5 shows that the driver and the cleaner were on the tractor trolly at the time of the fire accident. Even if, it is accepted that the cleaner was also sitting on the tractor, then also opposite parties could not escape from their liability to pay the loss of the tractor and trolly suffered by the complainant due to fire in the insured tractor trolly. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not point out any term or condition of the policy or any law, which may show that travelling of two persons on a tractor having seating capacity of only one, would amount to violation of any term or condition of the policy or would absolve the opposite parties from paying to the owner of the tractor trolly for damage to tractor trolly due to fire or any other accident. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances making the claim of the complainant by opposite parties as ‘No Claim’ amounted to deficiency in service.

9.                As a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,04,300/- insured amount to the complainant subject to necessary deductions as per terms and conditions of the policy with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 9.5.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                             (Veena Rani)         Anil Sharma)

                               Member               Member