Haryana

Ambala

CC/261/2021

Gurvinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Nishchal Gaur

12 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	261 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	23.08.2021
Date of decision	:	12.12.2023

Gurvinder Singh son of  Sh. Santokh Singh Aged 31 years, R/o Village Barnala P.O. Dhankour, District Ambala.

……. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance through its Branch Manager having its Local office at 5502-05/1, Surya Tower, Ist Floor, Nicholson Road, Ambala.
2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. (Formerly HDFC General Insurance Ltd and L&T General Insurance Company Limited through it director having its registered & Corporate Office at Ist Floor, HDFC House, 165+166 Blackbay Reclamation, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.
3. One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited through its Authorized Signatory having its registered office at 707, Acme Plaza, Opp. Big Cinemas, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai.
4. HDFC Bank Ltd. through its Branch Manager branch at Baldev Nagar, Chandigarh Road, Ambala City.

….….  Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:-     Shri Nishchal Gaur, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

                   Shri Abhishek Bansal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.3.

                   Shri Puneet Sirpaul, Advocate, counsel for OP No.4.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the torture, mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.   
2. To refund the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant which is illegally and fraudulently misused even after blockage of the HDFC Bank Credit Card of the complainant

or any other directions which this Commission deems fit in the facts andcircumstances of this case

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was using the facility of Credit Card bearing Number 457262XXXXXX5596 of OP No.4 and the said HDFC Credit card was insured with OP No.2 vide Policy no. 2999200816729105000. On 03.10.2019 the Complainant lost his credit card at Sector-9, Ambala City Market and when he came to know about this, he informed the customer care and made request to block his lost credit card. The card was blocked by the OP No.4 against which SMS was received by the Complainant on his mobile phone. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged Online FIR at the Website of www.haryanapoliceonline.gov.in and similarly got the copy of Online FIR vide Application No. 132210081902786 and subsequently intimated to the bank about the Online FIR to avoid the misuse of the credit card. After some time the complainant received SMS in his mobile phone regarding the dues of outstanding amount of credit card to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/-. Since the Credit Card of the Complainant was insured with OP No.2 as such, he approached OP No.2 for indemnifying the misuse of Credit Card of amount Rs. 1,10,000/-. On  18.06.2021 the Complainant received email vide which the claim of the complainant was rejected by the OP No.3 stating therein that "all transactions has been performed in a secured manner as the same has been validated by credit card PTN, which is known by cardholder only". The complainant is the victim of cyber crime and by refusing the complainant's claim over such illogical reason clearly reveals that OPs are merely taking an excuse to avoid their duty and responsibility. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written version  wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands as he has suppressed the material facts; the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the preliminary ground of non-disclosure and concealment of material facts; this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint;  the present complaint involved adjudication of question of complicated facts, which cannot be done under summary proceedings etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant made a complaint for loss regarding the incident on 03/10/2019 where transactions have been made out by the unknown persons with the credit card of the Complainant and out of these transactions the amount Rs.1,10,000/- had been withdrawn. After receiving this information OP No.3 had informed the Bank concerned, who blocked the Credit Card of the complainant. Claim under the policy is maintainable subject to strict compliance of terms and conditions and in view of violation of terms and condition of the policy, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs No.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy cost.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that OP No.3 was only required to facilitate the registering and processing of the claim of the complainant with the insurance company and it was the insurance company which is to settle the Insurance claim of the complainant and not the OP No.3 etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.3 provided the service to the complainant by processing his claim. As per the record, the claim of the complainant was rejected by the insurance company as per the policy General Condition "Reasonable Care". However, as per the records the insurance company as a gesture of goodwill had made the payment of Rs.1,10,000/- to the Complainant in full and final settlement of his claim. Payment details are here under:-

Cheque in favour of	Gurvinder Singh
Cheque Amount	1,10,000
Bank Account No.	50100094944176
Bank Name	HDFC Bank
Cheque/NEFT No.	3001571867
UTR No.	11229140 3809
Cheque Date	29.12.21
Transaction date	29.12.21	Time 10:28:22
`Payment mode	NEFT
Payment status	Payment confirmed

The subject card of the Complainant was insured with HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited through OP No.3 vide Membership id 1001678908 and Relationship id 2416228 under the Enhanced WA Privilege Single Plan. As per the terms and conditions entered between the complainant and OP No.3, the OP No.3 was only to facilitate the registering and processing the claim of the complainant with the insurance company. The complainant raised the claim with respect to the subject card on 18.07.2018. The said claim was processed and as per record, the insurance company approved and settled the said claim on 25.07.2018 for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Again the complainant raised the claim with respect to subject card on 03.10.2019, for amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. The said claim of the complainant was processed and forwarded for settlement to the Insurance company. On 18.11.2019, the said insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant as per policy General conditions "Reasonable care": It was informed that dispute transaction of Rs.1,10,000/- had occurred on the complainant's lost credit card and all disputes transactions have been performed in a secured manner as the same has been validated by credit card Pin, which is known by Cardholder only. Vide email dated 26.11.2019, OP No.3 duly Intimated about the rejection of the claim to the complainant with the reason assigned therein. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary cost.

5.           Upon notice, OP No.4 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has suppressed material facts; the present complaint is baseless and fragrant abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail OP No.4; the present complaint is not maintainable for want of joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant availed the credit card facility from OP No.4 and also took loan on his credit card and failed to make the credit card payment in time and thereafter the complainant also restructured the loan taken on credit card. Now a sum of Rs.203809.37/-(Loaded Balance) AAN No. 1019630001341982 [RESTRUCTURE LOAN) is pending against the complainant till 24.03.2022 which he is bound to pay.  The complainant cannot take the benefit of his own negligence as before any payment OTP is given to every customer on his registered mobile number. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.4 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with cost.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-W1/A, alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-17 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. Learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 tendered affidavit of Manoj Prajapati, Manager and Authorized Signatory, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Noida as Annexure OP-A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1 and 2. Learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered evidence of Kuldeepsinh Jadeja son of Arvindsinh Jadeja working for gain at One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited, having its Registered Office at 3 Floor, Fleet House, Next to Marol Metro Staion, Marol Naka, Andheri, Kurla Road, Mumbai-400059 as Annexure OP-3/A alongwith documents Annexure R3/1 to R3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3. Learned counsel for OP No. 4 tendered affidavit of  Gagandeep Singh, Legal Manager, HDFC Bank as Annexure OP 4/A alongwith documents Annexure R4/1 to R4/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.4.
7.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
8.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not reimbursing the amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, which got illegally deducted  through his credit card, the OPs have deficient in providing service.
9.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 while reiterating the objections raised in the written version submitted that after receiving the information regarding transition of amount of amount Rs.1,10,000/- from the account of the complainant, OP No.3 had informed to the Bank concerned, who blocked the Credit Card of the complainant. Claim under the policy is maintainable subject to strict compliance of terms and conditions and since there was violation of terms and condition of the policy on the part of the complainant, the claim has been rightly repudiated.
10.           Learned counsel for OP No.3 while reiterating the objections raised in the written version submitted that since now as per the records the insurance company as a gesture of goodwill had made the payment of Rs.1,10,000/- to the Complainant in full and final settlement of his claim, as such, the complaint needs to be dismissed.
11.           Learned counsel for OP No.4 while reiterating the objections raised in the written version submitted that the complainant availed the credit card facility from OP No.4 and also took loan on his credit card and failed to make the credit card payment in time and thereafter he also restructured the loan taken on credit card. Now a sum of Rs.203809.37/-(Loaded Balance) AAN No. 1019630001341982 [RESTRUCTURE LOAN) is pending against the complainant, which he is bound to pay. He further submitted that the complainant cannot take the benefit of his own negligence as before any payment OTP is given to every customer on his registered mobile number.
12.           It may be stated here that the OP No.3 in its written version has categorically stated that the insurance company as a goodwill gesture had made the payment of Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant as a full and final settlement of his claim. The said fact has not been rebutted by any of the parties. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the OP No.3 vehemently argued that since the complainant has already received the amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, as a full and final settlement of his claim, therefore, his complaint may be dismissed with heavy costs. The factum of payment of Rs.1,10,000/- by the insurance company to the complainant as full and final settlement of the claim has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant. Under these circumstances we are of the view that once the complainant has already received the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from the insurance company as a full and final settlement of his claim then he has no locus standi to file the present complaint, accordingly, we dismiss the same. The parties are left to bear their own costs.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 12.12.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President