Before the District Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 402
Instituted on : 04.09.2018
Decided on : 14.11.2023
MandeepHooda age 29 years, s/o Sh. Rohtash Singh R/o village-Siwani, Teh-Siwani, Distt. Bhiwani.
..............Complainant.
Vs.
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited Office, 1st Floor, HDFC House 165-166, Backbay Reclamation, H.T.Parekh Marg, Church Gate, Mumbai -400020 through its Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Shri H.S.Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of the vehicle car bearing registration no. HR-17A-9991 and it was insured for the period of 17.12.2017 to 16.12.2018 from the opposite party vide policy no.2311100258250700000. It is further submitted that the alleged vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 24.12.2017 and intimation in this regard wasgiven to the respondent timely. The vehicle was parked in the workshop of Hyundai workshop at Rohtak and surveyor was appointed by the opposite party. Complainant applied for the claim with the opposite party but he was surprised to receive a letter dated 15.03.2018 by which the respondent has repudiated the claim of the complainant on illegal and baseless grounds. The complainant never suppressed any material facts from the respondent insurance company nor violated any terms and conditions of the policy. Due to repudiation of claim, the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.419804/- for the repairing of the vehicle.The complainant requested the opposite party many times to disburse the claim amount but they did not give any heed to the request of complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.419804/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of accident of vehicle till its actual realization, Rs.2,00,000/- for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that after receiving the loss regarding the vehicle in question, surveyor was appointed by the oppositeparty and during the survey it was found that there were differences between the vehicle, which was insured by the opposite party and the vehicle which was damaged in the alleged accident. Following discrepancies were noted:-
Sr.No. | Vehicle insured(Pre inspected) | Vehicle damaged in accident |
1. | Sticker was not on rear door left | Sticker was available on rear door left |
2 | There was chrome on handle | Handle was white |
3. | Emblem was not on vehicle | Emblem available |
There has been suppression of the material facts with obvious purpose to mis-lead the insurance company to admissibility of the claim. In the light of the discrepancies detailed above and suppression of the material facts, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 05.03.2018. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the party of opposite parties. 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 the complainant in his evidence has availed sufficient opportunities but failed to conclude his evidence and as such evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 16.11.2022 of this Commission. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 12.06.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the evidence of the complainant has been closed by Court order on dated 16.11.2022 after giving sufficient opportunities to the complainant to lead his evidence. But for the disposal of the complaint, we have minutely perused the documents annexed with the complaint. The complainant has annexed document i.e. rejection letter dated 05.03.2018 and this document is also placed on record by the respondent as Ex.R4. The perusal of this document shows that the claim of the complainant has been rejected by the insurance company on some discrepancies which are as under:-
Sr.No. | Vehicle insured(Pre inspected) | Vehicle damaged in accident |
1. | Sticker was not on rear door left | Sticker was available on rear door left |
2 | There was chrome on handle | Handle was white |
3. | Emblem was not on vehicle | Emblem available |
After perusal of the documents of both the parties, we came into the conclusion that no discrepancy was found in the engine number, chassis number and any other part of the vehicle by the surveyor. Moreover there are 3 minor differences,which werefound by the surveyor in his survey report. A consumer can change/replace the accessories and paste some stickers upon the body of the vehicle after the insurance. So as per our opinion ‘the sticker was available on the rear body, emblem was available on the vehicle and handle was white’, these are some minor discrepancies, which were found in the vehicle. So as per our opinion the accidental vehicle and insured vehicle is same. Hence the claim has been wrongly repudiated by the insurance company. As per the complainant he has spent an amount of Rs.419804/- on the repair of the vehicle. To prove this fact he has placed on record a copy of invoice amounting to Rs.419804/- issued by Hyundai(Shrishti Motors Pvt. Ltd.). Meaning thereby the complainant spent the above said amount on the repair of the vehicle. On the other hand, insurance company placed on record a survey report Ex.R2 but in this report the surveyor has not mentioned the assessment of damages in the vehicle in question. He has not mentioned the estimate or other essential ingredients of the vehicle in his survey report. He merely mentioned 3 differences and suggested the insurance company to repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of above mentioned discrepancies and the insurance company after believing the surveyor’s contention, had repudiated the claim of the complainant. As per our opinion the surveyor failed to assess the actual damages in the vehicle in question. So we believe the complainant’s version and direct the respondent to pay the claim amount as per invoice.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.419804/-(Rupees four lac nineteen thousand eight hundred and four only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.09.2018 till its realization and shall also 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:
14.11.2023.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
.........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
