Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/12/2021

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurnace Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manjeet Chahar

27 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

         

                                                         Complaint Case No. 12 of 2021.

                                                Date of Institution: 21.01.2021.

                                                          Date of Decision:             27.11.2024.

 

Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Ved Pal, village Nimar Badesra, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                                                                       

                                      Versus

1.       HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, through its General Manager, 1^st Floor, HDFC House, 165-166 Backbay Reclamation H. T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

2.       Regional Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Regional office SCO 237, 2^nd Floor, Sector-12, Karnal-132001.

                                                                             …...Opposite Parties.

 

                    COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   (Proceeded under Section 64 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019)    

         

Present:       Shri Manjeet Chahar, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Vinod Kumar Chahar, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER

                   The present complaint is being decided by me in accordance with the provisions of Section 64 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

          The case of the complainants in brief, is that the complainant is registered owner of a Car TATA Indica bearing No.HR-16M-5182 and the same was insured with OPs from 10.04.2019 to 09.04.2020 vide policy No. 2311100441571700000945489.  It is alleged that on 6.3.2020 complainant went to Shri Khatu Shyam Ji Temple, District Sikar, Rajasthan and at about 10.00 am parked his vehicle in free parking available in the premises itself at Bus depot, Ringus Road.  It is further alleged that after taking blessings of the Khatu Shyam Ji, when the complainant reached back to the parking, he did not found his vehicle and he enquired about his vehicle all around, including police officials on duty, but could not found the same.  It is further alleged that FIR No. 75 dated 14.3.2020 was got lodged with police station, Khatu Shyam Ji under Section 379 of IPC and also intimated the OPs.  It is further alleged that the complainant has applied for claim and claim file No. 110485/31/12/01/90000098 was prepared.  It is further alleged that the complainant has supplied all the documents to investigator appointed by the OPs.  It is further alleged that the Police has prepared final report. It is further alleged that a legal notice dated 22.12.2020 was also served upon the OPs, but to no effect.  It is further alleged that non-payment of claim by the OPs is illegal, against the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OPs have filed contested written statement alleging therein that the claim of the complainant has been closed on the ground of non submission of requisite documents.  It is alleged that the claim was lodged with the OPs on 20.3.2020, whereas theft took place on 6.3.2020, meaning thereby the complainant has intimated the OPs after 15 days delay and no justification was given by the insured for delay.  It is further alleged that the FIR was also lodged on 14.3.2020 after delay of 8 days.  It is further alleged that there is violation of terms & conditions No. 1 of the insurance policy.  It is further averred that a letters were sent to the complainant on 23.7.2020, 23.9.2020 & 7.10.2020 for supplying of certain documents, but he failed to supply the same and as such the claim of complainant was repudiated by the OPs vide letter dated 27.10.2020.  Hence, in view of the facts mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                The complainant and the OPs in support of their respective averments tendered documentary evidence alongwith their respective affidavits and adduced certain documents.  Reference of the relevant record is given in this order.   

4.                 I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the convinced view that the present complaint has merit and the same deserves acceptance for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

5.                The plea taken by the OPs is that the incident had taken place on 6.3.2020 and the answering OPs ware informed on 20.3.2020 i.e. after 15 days and FIR was lodged after 8 days and there is no reason as to why such a long time was taken by the complainant.   The further plea taken by the OPs is that the complainant has failed in supplying the requisite documents despite repeated requests and as such repudiation of claim is legal and justified and he is not entitled for any compensation on any count.  There is no dispute regarding issuance of policy by the OPs.  It is also admitted fact that FIR No. 75 dated 14.3.2020 Annexure C4 was lodged in P.S. Khatu Shyamji (Rajasthan). In my view, the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the OPs has no merit, because a person who had lost his vehicle which was being used by him would not go immediately to Insurance Company to claim the compensation.  At the first instance, he himself would make efforts to search the vehicle and filing of claim with the Insurance Company is the last option.  Moreover, he had reported the matter to the police.  So, question of minor delay regarding intimation to the insurance company did not disentitle the complainant to get benefit of insurance.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon Ashok Kumar Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd., decided on 31.7.2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the Award of District Commission and of State Commission allowing of delay in intimation to insurance company in theft cases.

6.                In my view, the rejection of claims purely on procedural grounds in a mechanical fashion shall result in policy holders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigations.  What is the spirit of Insurance Policy, should be kept in mind by the officials dealing with genuine claims of the sufferers and same should not be rejected on methodological grounds in a mechanical manner. The tendency of Insurance Company in rejecting genuine claims is the reason of increasing litigation between the insurers and insured.  Learned Counsel for complainant has contended that mere plea that matter lately informed would not defeat the claim. It is also pertinent to mention here that circular No. IR&A/HLTH/HISC/CIR/216/09/ 2011 at 20.09.2011 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority reveals that condition of intimation to the insurer within specified manner of days should not prevent settlement of genuine claims.  The insurers were also advised to incorporate additional wordings in the policy documents suitably enunciating insurers stand to condone delay on merit for delayed claims.  It is very clear from above circular that Insurance Company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation etc. 

7.                In my view, in case of theft primary requirement is to lodge the FIR immediately and intimation to insurance company is secondary.  In the present case the theft took place on 6.3.2020 and FIR Ex. C-4 was lodged with the Police.  Subsequently, “Untraced Report” Ex. C-5 was accepted by the Court.  In the present case delay in intimation to the insurance company is 15 days, which may be considered reasonable and justified, as the complainant promptly lodged the FIR.  So far as the question of non supply of documents by the complainant is concerned, the complainant has claimed that he has already supplied the requisite documents to the OPs.  Moreover, the complainant has placed on file almost all the documents, required by the OPs.  But the OPs did not settle the claim of the complainant even during the pendency of the present complaint.

8.                Now, the question arises whether the value of the stolen vehicle in question is to be taken as insured value or market value.  The contractual value of the vehicle in question for which the vehicle was insured is payable as the OP had charged the premium on that amount.  So, the OP cannot be allowed to deduct the depreciation amount.  Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the OPs are directed: -

i)        To pay the insured amount i.e. Rs.2,85,000/- (Two lacs eighty five thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 27.10.2020 till its final realization.

2.  

iii.      To pay Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) as litigation charges.

          The OPs shall make the compliance of the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Non compliance of this order on the part of OP No. 1 will lead to action in terms of Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.  The order be promptly uploaded on the website. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.