District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 568/2021.
Date of Institution:02.11.2021.
Date of Order: 10.02.2023.
Manoj Kumar son of late Shri Purshottam Lal, resident of House No. 1666, Sanjay Enclave, NIT, Near Chacha Chowk, Faridabad Aadhar card No. 6300 5763 3542 Mobile No. 9136136242.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited situated at Ambadeep Building 14, Ground floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001 New Delhi service be effected at Faridabad.
2. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC General Insurance Limited Registered & Corporate office Ist floor, HDFC House NO. 165-166, Backbay Reclamation H, T Parekh Marg, Chuchgate Mumbai – 400 020 through its authorized person.
3. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager situated at SCO 237, 2nd floor, Sector-12, Karnal Pin – 132001 through its authorized person.
4. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Service Address 6th floor Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 through its authorized person.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Inderjeet Tiwari, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. D.D.Arya, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 4.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle Suzuki Gixxer) bearing registration No. HR-51-BM-3004 which was insured with the opposite parties bearing policy No. 2312202538579300000 valid from 06.12.2018 to 05.12.2019. During the insurance period the said vehicle the complainant had been stolen on 27.09.2019 and the complainant searched out the same then the complainant intimated to the police than an FIR No. 0447 dated 27.9.2019 under section 379 IPC was registered in P.S. Kotwali Faridabad and later on the police had investigated the matter and after long period the police given the untraced report before the court of Ms. Kimmi Singhla, JMIC, Faridabad. All the documents was supplied by the complainant to the opposite parties within the stipulated time regarding stolen of the vehicle but the opposite parties had not reimburse the claim of the complainant without any reason till today, whereas the complainant repeatedly visited to the opposite parties, but the officials of the opposite parties were avoiding legitimate request of the complainant on one pretext to the another. The complainant made the complaint through e-mail to the opposite party to make the insured amount but
no result came out. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay the insured amount of relating to the theft of the vehicle of the complainant during the insurance period to the complainant.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant had not provided all the requisite documents to the answering opposite party company despite repeated reminders whereas it had been specifically mentioned in the notices served upon him that the sought documents/information were necessary for claim settlement. The complainant had been served notice dated 28.09.2019, 12.10.2019, 18.11.2019 and 22.12.2019 and provided ample opportunity and time by the opposite party company but received no cooperation and response from the complainant due to his ulterior motives and malafide intentions. The complainant with the intention to mislead this Hon’ble Commission had concealed the fact that various query letters were sent to the complainant for providing the below mentioned details/items and when inspite of various letters the desired requirements were not shared the claim was rejected for non submission of requirements as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
a) Original previous insurance policy, CCTV footage.
b) RTO form No. 26, 28, 29, 30 duly signed.
c) Letter of indemnity cum subrogation duly notarized with a copy of witness ID.
d) Untrace report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. certified and accepted by Court/Court order.
The opposite party had been writing letters to the complainant to provide relevant details to enable it to consider his claim, however complainant had not submitted the required details as mentioned in the queries & deliberately not provided related items which had compelled answering opposite party to reject the claim of the complainant vide rejection letter. Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited with the prayer to: a) pay the insured amount of relating to the theft of the vehicle of the complainant during the insurance period to the complainant. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence,
Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Manoj Kumar, Ex.C-1 – Motor Insurance-Two Wheeler Comprehensive Policy, Ex.C-2 – FIR, Ex.C-3 – Untrace report, Ex.C-4 – No Claim letter dated January 7,2020, Ex.C-5 – letter dated 22.12.2019.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shweta Pokhriyal , Senior Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Noida, Ex.R1W1/1 (colly) - Motor Insurance – Two Wheeler Comprehensive Policy, Ex. R1W1/2 - investigation report, Ex.R1W1/3 – letter dated 28.09.2019, Ex.R1W1/4 – No claim letter dated January 7, 2020.
6. In this case, complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle Suzuki Gixxer) bearing registration No. HR-51-BM-3004 which was insured with the opposite parties bearing policy No. 2312202538579300000 valid from 06.12.2018 to 05.12.2019 vide Ex. C-1. The vehicle in question had been stolen on 27.09.2019 and the complainant searched out the same then the complainant intimated to the police than an FIR No. 0447 dated 27.9.2019 under section 379 IPC was registered in P.S. Kotwali Faridabad vide Ex.C-2 and later on the police had investigated the matter and after long period the police given the untraced report before the court of Ms. Kimmi Singhla, JMIC, Faridabad vide Ex.C-3. Opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter January 7, 2020 (Ex.C-4) on the ground of non submission of documents.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed on non standard basis.
8. For the adjudication of the present complaint and the issue therein,
we place reliance on the Supreme Court Authority Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company in Civil Appeal NO. 2703/2010 decided on 25.3.2010.
In Amalendu Sahoo’s case, there was violations of the Terms & conditions of the policy and the insurance benefits were denied by the insurance company. In the above mentioned case, further reliance was placed by the Supreme Court on:
a). New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad Pathak, and
b). National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal
Wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that the claim could have been settled on non standard basis in the event of any breach of condition upto 50%. Once the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle for the loss caused to the insured, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner. When there is breach of the condition of the policy, the insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis.
9. Following the aforesaid guidelines, this Commission is of the opinion that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto. The complaint is allowed for claim to be settled on non standard basis.
IDV value of vehicle : Rs.64,000.00
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000.00
: Rs.,63,000.00
Deduction 10% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 6,300.00
Total : Rs. 56,700.00
10. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 56,700/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization, subject to submission of documents. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This payment will be subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29,30 and Form 35. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. File be consigned to the record room. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.
Announced on: 10.02.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
