Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 587

                                                                   Instituted on     : 28.11.2018

                                                                   Decided on       : 07.03.2024

Vikas s/o Sh.Surat Singh H.No.374/30, Dev Colony, Rohtak.

                                                                   ……….………….Complainant.

                                      Vs.

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, 165-166, Backbay reclamation, H.T.Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

                                                          ...........……Respondent/opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.Ashwani Phougat, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had insured his bullet bike bearing no.HR12AA-7087 from the opposite party  vide policy No.2312201956298700000 from dated 26.10.2017 to 25.10.2020. The complainant’s vehicle caught fire outside Raju Rinku service centre, Sonipat Stand Rohtak on dated 01.09.2018. The insurance company asked the complainant to get the bike repair and to submit the bill to company. The complainant repaired the bike and submitted the bill to the company but opposite party  did not pay the repaired bill amount and denied to pay the same to the complainant.  The above said vehicle is within insured period and the opposite parties are legally bound to pay the claim amount within stipulated period.  But they are unnecessarily harassing the complainant.  The act and conduct of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the repair amount of vehicle i.e. Rs.70000/-  and also to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that on getting the claim intimation and document thereof, the claim of the complainant was evaluated as per the terms and conditions of the policy and it was found that vehicle in question having suffered loss due to the fire while the vehicle being under repair work at Raju Rinku Service Centre, Dhobi Ghar Rohtak and the claim of the complainant falls under General Exceptions of the policy. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 07.01.2020. Ld. Counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed his evidence on 05.08.2021. 

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. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter Ex.C4 on the ground that  as per general exception 2 mentioned in the policy wordings, company shall not be liable in respect of any claim arising out of any contractual liability.  We have minutely perused the general exceptions No. 2, mentioned in the policy Ex.R2, as per which it is submitted that : “Company shall not be liable in respect of (2). any claim arising out of any contractual liability”.  A thorough perusal of alleged general exceptions shows that it has not been specifically mentioned in these exceptions that if a vehicle is handed over to a workshop for some repair and if at that time the vehicle becomes damage, the same is not covered under the policy.  Hence the repudiation of claim on this ground is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As per policy Ex.R1, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.89000/-. The assessment of surveyor has not been placed on record by the insurance company. We have minutely perused the bills placed on record by the complainant. The total of bills Ex Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 comes to Rs.53387/- and the complainant is entitled for the said amount.

6.                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.53387/-(Rupees fifty three thousand three hundred and eighty seven only)  alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within  one month from the date of decision. 

7.                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:

07.03.2024.

                                                          ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                          ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member