Haryana

Karnal

262/2014

Dinesh S/o Jai Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO Gernal Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Sachdva

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 262 of 2014

                                                    Date of instt. 17.09.2014

                                                     Date of decision 23.10.2017

 

Dinesh son of Shri Jai Parkash resident of House no.1871/31, Kamla Nagar, Rohtak.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 237, 2^nd Floor, Sector-12, Karnal through its Manager.

2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. 8^th floor Lila Business Park Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East)Mumbai, through its Manager.

                                                   

     ..…Opposite Parties.

 

  Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President.

                Ms. Veena Rani ..……Member 

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present: Shri Deepak Sachdeva Adv. for the complainant.

               Shri Sanjeev Vohra Advocate for opposite parties.

              

              

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he was registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration no.HR-12U-1597 and authorized agent of OPs got insured the same at Rohtak for the period 16.9.2012 to 15.9.2013, vide policy no.2311200337226700002 under IDV value of Rs.8,54,050/-. On 18.3.2013 his vehicle met with an accident near village Kithana District Kaithal and badly damaged. He informed the OPs regarding the said accident within time and submitted his claim. He visited the OPs many times, but OPs did not paid the claim amount and harassed him. Then he served a legal notice upon the OPs, but it also did not yield any result. OPs issued a letter dated 1.4.2013, vide which his claim was repudiated without any justification and in an illegal and arbitrary manner. In this way, opposite parties are deficient in their service. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties,  who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objection with regarding to maintainability; jurisdiction; complicated questions of law and facts are involved which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction and concealments of facts. The true facts are that the alleged accident took place on 18.3.2013 and matter was reported to the OPs on 28.3.2013 and it was clear violation of terms and conditions of policy and moreover as per report of the investigator, it was found that there were two persons at the time of accident and both were badly drunk whereas complainant informed that he was alone at the time of accident, which clearly proved the suppression of true and material facts. It has further been submitted that as per contents of the complaint, the complainant himself admitted that he got insured his vehicle at Rohtak, correspondence took place at Rohtak, legal notice served through counsel at Rohtak, no cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover, the policy in question was also not issued at Karnal, nor accident took place within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C7  and closed his evidence on 10.01.2017.

4.             On the other hand, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Pankaj Kumar, Manager Ex.OW1/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.)6 and closed the evidence on 27.7.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle No.HR-12U-1597 and the same was insured at Rohtak for the period from 16.9.2012 to 15.9.2013, vide policy no. 2311200337226700002 with the IDV value of Rs.8,54,050/- and on 18.3.2013 the said vehicle met with an accident near village Kithana, District Kaithal and damaged badly. It is also admitted by the  parties that the complainant submitted claim and the same was repudiated by the opposite parties.

7.             The OPs strongly contended that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction as per contents of the complaint, the complainant himself admitted that he got insured his vehicle at Rohtak, correspondence took place at Rohtak, legal notice served through counsel at Rohtak, no cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover, the policy in question was also not issued at Karnal, nor accident took place within the jurisdiction of this Forum. In reply to this, the learned counsel for complainant stated that the matter relating to jurisdiction has already been decided by this Forum, vide order dated 4.7.2016.  In view of the order dated 4.7.2016, it is clear that the matter relating to jurisdiction has already been decided, so this contention of OPs has no force.

8.             According to the allegations of the complainant that the repudiation of his claim by the OPs is without any justification and is an illegal and arbitrary manner, act and conduct of OPs is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of law and natural justice. The complainant has failed to explain that in what manner the repudiation of his claim was not justified or illegal or arbitrary.

9.             The OPs further contended that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated and duly conveyed, vide letter dated 28.5.2013 and copy of the same is Ex.O-1. The alleged accident occurred on 18.3.2013 and the matter was intimated to the OPs on 28.3.2013 i.e. after 10 days, which is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. As per report of Investigator, it was found that there were to persons in the car at the time of accident and both were badly drunk, whereas the complainant informed that there was he alone, which is clearly suppression of true and material facts. It is further contended that as per the witnesses who took out the complainant and other person from the accidental car, there were two persons in the car and both were injured and were in drunken condition and they were shifted to hospital at Jind. Meals and wine were also in the car. As per the report of the investigator, the hospital authorities denied to supply the medical/treatment record of the complainant as well as of that second person. It is further contended that even the complainant has not supplied the same inspite of letter dated 1.4.2013 written by the OPS to the complainant.

10.           The complainant admitted the issuance of letter dated 1.4.2013 by the OPs and placed the same on the file as Ex.C2. On perusal of Ex.C2, it is clear that vide this letter the OPs has demanded some documents from the complainant including the fact that how many passengers were there in the car, injuries to driver or any occupant, if any, with treatment details. There is no evidence on the file that whether the documents and information demanded by the OPs, vide letter dated 1.4.2013 Ex.C2 had been supplied by the complainant or not. The complainant is silent about the same. No evidence has been produced by the complainant on the file to prove that he had supplied the same. The complainant has neither mentioned a single word in his complaint about the supplying of medical treatment record nor produced any such evidence on the file, so the contention of the OPs that the complainant was in drunken condition has found force. If the complainant was not in drunken condition, he might had supplied the treatment record including the MLR, but the complainant has not supplied the same inspite of written request of the OPs which means there might be some wrong on the part of the complainant. Therefore, the non-supply of the treatment record by the complainant to the OPs indicates that the complainant was in drunken condition at the time of accident which is a material violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. In these facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs have committed no wrong in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Hence the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

11.           Thus, in view of above discussions, we find no merits in the complaint and hence the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 23.10.2017

                                                                        (Jagmal Singh)

                                                                          President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                         Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                Member