Delhi

East Delhi

CC/866/2015

CALLISTO BUILDING SOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO INS - Opp.Party(s)

21 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 866/15

M/S CALLISTO BUILDING SOLUTIONS Pvt. Ltd.

THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER/A.R.

Shri SHRIKANT SHARMA

OFICE AT:154/K SECTOR-07

IMT MANESAR, GURGAON,

1.  

                                                                                                                         ….Complainant

•  

 

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd.

HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT

UNIT NO. 502, 504,506, FIFTH FLOOR,

MANATTA TOWER, 54, B-1, BLOCK COMMUNITY CENTRE,

JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/A.R/MANAGER

                                                                                                                          ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 18.11.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 21.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 02.05.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed through General Manager M/S Callisto Building Solutions Pvt. Ltd., against HDFC Ergo General Insurance.
2. Facts in brief are that M/S Callisto Building Solutions Pvt. Ltd., was registered owner of vehicle bearing no. HR 26 CK 6707, which was being used by Shri Shrikant Sharma. The EMI’s of the said vehicle were being paid by Shri Shrikant Sharma. The said vehicle was purchased on 12/11/2014 which was duly insured with OP for IDV of Rs.7,28,555/-. The policy cover was from 12/11/2014 to 04/11/2014 with policy no. 2311200901991100000. On 18/12/2014, the said vehicle was stolen for which FIR no. 1116/2014 was registered with Police Station, Kasna District, Gautam Budh Nagar. It is stated that despite several visits the claim of the complainant was not settled by the OP, thus OP was liable for deficiency in services. Hence the present complaint praying for  direction to the OP to reimburse the IDV amount i.e. Rs.7,50,000/- of vehicle with 18% interest, Rs.2,50,000/- compensation for mental agony, harassment and pain, Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation charges.
3. PCL resolution dated 03/08/2014, retail invoice dated 12/11/2014, copy of the RC, copy of insurance, ED of subrogation, copy of FIR, untraced report dated 18/12/2014, claim form repudiation letter dated 19/05/2015 have been annexed with the complaint.
4. OP filed their written statement after the notice of the complaint, were served upon them. in their reply, they took the plea that as the complainant is commercial organization, thus they are excluded from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. It was submitted that on intimation of theft M/S Suraksha Enterprises was engaged to investigate the matter, as per the report, claim was repudiated in breach of policy terms and conditions. It was also submitted that as the vehicle was hypothecated with HDFC bank Ltd. So, the claim, if any, was payable to the said bank as per terms and conditions.
5. Rejoinder to the written statement filed on behalf of the OP, was filed by complainant. Where the contents of the complaint were reiterated and those of the written statement were denied.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he examined himself and stated the contents of the complaint. He relied on Exhibit RW1/1- copy of the policy along with terms and conditions, Exhibit RW1/2- copy of the report of the investigation, Exhibit RW1/-copy of the police intimation report.
7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. Firstly deciding on the PO taken by the OP, that complainant is a commercial organization this does not come under the perview of the Consumer Protection Act. In “M/S Harsolia Motors v/s M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd., F.A. No. 159 of 2004, Hon’ble National Commission held that a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is only for indemnification & actual loss. It is not intended to generate project.” Hence, in the present complaint, as the vehicle was being used for personal, the complainant can filed consumer complaint. Exhibit RW1/1 is the insurance policy, which shows that the said vehicle was insured with IDV of Rs.7,28,555/-. OP was informed on the very next day of theft. Exhibit RW1/3 is the letter written by the complainant to SHO, Police Station Kasana, where he has stated that one key was in his laptop bag, which was stolen alongwith the car, it is nowhere the case of OP that the key was left in the ignition. Hence, the present complaint is allowed. OP is directed to settle the claim of the complaint with IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.7,28,555/-, as the vehicle is hypothecated with HDFC bank Ltd., the said amount shall be first adjusted towards the lien. We also award compensation of Rs.25,000/- as the OP has failed to settle the claim, this shall also include the cost of litigation. If the said order is not complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order then OP shall be liable to pay 9% interest on Rs.753,555/- (7,28,555+25,000) from the date of filing this complaint.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

(Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                                               (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

      MEMBER                                                                                          MEMBER

 

                                                 (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                     PRESIDENT