Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/62/2019

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Ergo - Opp.Party(s)

Man pal Singh

15 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 62 of 2019

                                                                Date of Institution    :  14.03.2019

                                                                Date of decision:      : 15.07.2024  

 

Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Chandu Lal R/o H.No.804, New Bharat Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, Haryana.

                                        ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

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

 

2. Lohchab Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sheela Bye Pass, Rohtak, Tehsil and District Rohtak, through its authorized signatory.

 

3. Rakesh, authorized agent of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., having its office at Devsar Chungi, Dinod Gate, Bhiwani.

 

4. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Com. Ltd.                                                    

...Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Manpal Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Satender Kumar Ghanghas, Advocate for OP No.1.

                    Sh. Mukesh Gulia, Advocate for OP No.2.

                    Sh. Raman Tanwar, Advocate for OP No.3.

                    Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for OP No.4.

  

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this complaint are that complainant being owner of vehicle Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No.HR-16P-1986 got insured from OP No.1 for a period from 13.11.2018 to 12.11.2019. The vehicle was financed with OP No.4. On 06.12.2018, the vehicle met with an accident in the area of Naurangabad, Bhiwani-Rohtak Road with a stray animal and the vehicle got badly damaged. OP No.1 insurance company was informed and the vehicle was brought to OP No.2-workshop on 07.12.2018 and complainant incurred Rs.2.50 lacs on repairs of the vehicle but claim for the said amount was not released by OP insurance company.  So, legal notice was served upon the OP but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs resulting into monetary loss to him besides mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OPs to pay Rs.2.50 lac as repairs charges of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% upto to date. Further to payRs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment. Also to pay Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed their separate written statement admitting that the insurance policy as alleged was issued to the complainant subject to certain terms and conditions. It is submitted that a foul play has been committed with the answering OP in order to get unjust benefit of already damaged vehicle and this act of fraud cannot be done without the connivance of insured as he is the only one who will get the undue advantage from such acts and thus no liability can be attributed against the answering OP. It is submitted that certain discrepancies were observed by Surveyor Mr. Sunny Goel, viz.  bumper found scratched in Pre-inspection (PI) photographs, however it was safe during the final survey, during the PI, the vehicle was fitted with wheel caps but at the time of final survey vehicle was fitted with alloy rims, colour of indicator was different, rear bumper guard missing in final survey whereas it was available in PI etc.. Hence, claim of complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 02.01.2019.  In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.2 filed written statement submitting that the vehicle of complainant was damaged badly and answering OP repaired the same but denied for any deficiency in service. In the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 OP No.3 filed written statement stating that the answering OP being Agent of the OP insurance company, get the vehicle in question insured for a period from 13.11.2018 to 12.11.2019, as terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In the end, denied for rest of the contents of complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                 OP No.4 filed written statement submitting that on the request of complainant, a loan of Rs.5,85,000/- was sanctioned in favour of complainant which was to be repaid in 45 monthly installments of Rs.16,929/-. In case of default, there was penal interest on the loaned amount. It is stated that upto 11.11.20919, there was an outstanding of Rs.2,20,077/-. The answering OP has submitted that in case of payment by OP No.1 insurance company then as per bank clause, it may be paid to this OP being financer.

6.                 In evidence of complainant, affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-10 were tendered and closed the evidence on 02.08.2022.

7.                 On the other side, Learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavits of  Ms. Shweta Pokhriyal, Senior Manager (Legal) and Mr. Sunny Goel, Surveyor as Ex. RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A respectively alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-11 and closed the evidence on 22.01.2024.

8.                 On behalf of OP No.2 document Ex. DW1 was tendered in evidnece and closed the same on 26.03.2024.

9.                 On behalf of OP No.4 affidavit Ex. RW1/A alongiwth documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3 were tendered and closed the evidence on 26.03.2024.

10.               No evidence was tendered on behalf of OP No.3 despite availing sufficient opportunities, as such, evidence was closed by Court vide order dated 26.03.2024.

11.               We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

12.               At the outset, the claim of complainant has been repudiated by the OP insurance company on the basis of surveyor’s report (Annexure R-3). We have gone carefully through this report which reveals that registration number of the vehicle is HR-16P-1986 and R.C. of the vehicle has been verified.  However, the surveyor has pointed out that there have been some changes in the vehicle i.e. prior to the accident and after the accident qua plastic parts etc. as referred above in the written statement of the OP insurance company. On such grounds, the surveyor has recommended No Liability of the OP insurance company to pay claim to complainant.  However, the surveyor has assessed the claim of the vehicle as Final Payable without Depreciation (rounded off value) as Rs.2,36,742/-. We have also seen the photographs (Annexure R-4 to Annexure R-9) which show some minor changes in the outer plastic parts of the vehicle but these photographs does not have any date and time when these photographs were taken, hence, denial of claim to complainant on this ground was unjustified on the part of OP insurance company. OP No.2 Service Centre has nowhere pleaded that the bill of the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Annexure C-9) has not been issued by it. In other words, the OP No.2 has received the aforesaid amount from the complainant as repairs charges of the damaged vehicle. The details of the aforementioned bill has been mentioned in Annexure C-10.

13.               After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that on the day of alleged accident, the vehicle in question was under insurance coverage with the OP insurance company. It is further observed that repudiation of the claim by OP insurance company was not reasonable and justified in the circumstances of the present case. This conduct of OP No.1 insurance company was deficient and negligent in providing proper services to the complainant which must have caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant besides monetary loss. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate, to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.2,36,742/- to the complainant, so calculated by the surveyor in his report. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for OP No.4-insurer has submitted that the entire loan amount has been received by it and now nothing is outstanding against the complainant qua the vehicle in question. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and complainant is also entitled to get compensation for harassment. As such, the OP No.1 insurance company is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.2,36,742/- (Rs. Two lac thirty six thousand seven hundred forty two) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization.

(ii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant at the hands of OPs.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the aforementioned awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.  If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party no.1 may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:15.07.2024.