Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 181.
Instituted on : 20.03.2017.
Decided on : 10.07.2019.
Rajpal age 34 years, son of Chattar Singh r/o VPO Kahni 12-1/2 Biswa-7B, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
HDFC ERGO General insurance Company Ltd., 6th Floor Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(East) Mumbai 4000059 through Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.K.Beniwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased the vehicle from Shristi Hyundai Rohtak bearing registration No.HR-12AA-0908 which was duly insured with the respondent insurance company vide policy no.2311201276914400000 dated 28.12.2015 to 27.12.2016 and IDV of same was Rs.339000/-. That the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 25.10.2016 and suffered total loss. That complainant immediately intimated to respondent about the damage and respondent appointed surveyor who submitted his report in the office of respondent. That complainant has suffered loss of Rs.339000/- in the vehicle. That complainant lodged the claim alongwith required documents with the opposite party but despite repeated requests of the complainant, claim amount has not been disbursed to the complainant and the claim has been repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter dated 13.12.2016. That the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.339000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in the relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party filed its reply and has submitted that the vehicle of the complainant allegedly met with an accident on 25.10.2016 and the intimation was given on 27.10.2016 i.e. after a delay of 2 days. That the surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.126575/- and has given the findings that complainant at the time of claim intimation has nformed that he(Rajpal) was driving the vehicle, when the same met with an accident. But the complainant, while filing the claim form has mentioned that one Mr. Devender Sharma was driving the vehicle. That letters were issued to the complainant for submitting the DL of the complainant but the complainant failed to submit the DL, and thus due to non compliance on the part of complainant, the claim of the complainant was treated as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 06.12.2016. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence on dated 28.11.2018. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/7 and closed his evidence on dated 29.03.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, the respondent counsel argued that the accident has taken place on 25.10.2016 whereas the intimation was given on 27.10.2016 after delay of 2 days. The another contention of the respondent is that at the time of giving intimation in the company, complainant has informed that he himself was driving the vehicle but lateron in the claim form, it was mentioned that one Devender Sharma was driving the vehicle. We have perused the documents submitted by both the parties. Regarding the delayed intimation of 2 days to the opposite party, we have placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid-down in 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Delay of 12 days in intimation to insurance company-There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim, which is otherwise proved to be genuine”. We have placed reliance upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula decided on 20.09.2018 in case titled as Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljeet Singh and order dated 20.08.2018 decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana Panchkula titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs. Balwant Rai… “It is very clear from the circular of IRDA that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The decision of insurers to reject a claim of the claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute”. The law cited above, are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Regarding the other contention of driving licence, it is observed that the accident had taken place on 25.10.2016 and respondent officials deputed a surveyor Sh. Sunny Goel who assessed the loss in the vehicle of the complainant. The surveyor wrote a letter to the complainant and demanded driving licence. After that, the complainant deposited the driving licence with the surveyor and he submitted his report on dated 12.12.2016 which is placed on record as Ex.R1/4, in which the particulars of the driver has been mentioned by the surveyor as Devender Sharma. In this report, the surveyor has not made any objection that Mr. Devender Sharma s/o Sh.Om Parksah was not driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident. Moreover, the respondent officials failed to place on record any document to prove that at the time of intimation this fact has been disclosed to the respondent that complainant himself was driving the vehicle in question. As per the pleadings and documents, it is well proved that Mr. Devender was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. As per surveyor, the complainant has assessed the loss of Rs.126500/- whereas the complainant has demanded a sum of Rs.339000/-. But the complainant has failed to place on record any authenticated documents to prove that he spent a huge amount of Rs.339000/- on the repair of his vehicle. As such, complainant is entitled for the loss as per report of surveyor.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.126575/-(Rupees one lac twenty six thousand five hundred seventy five only) alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of present complaint i.e.20.03.2017 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. 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:
10.07.2019.
...................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
