Delhi

North East

CC/14/2022

Vinish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jul 2024

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.14/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Vinish Kumar, S/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o H.No. E 13, New Seemapuri, North East, Delhi Delhi 110095	Complainant
	Versus
	HDFC General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through General Manager 1st Floor, HDFC House, 165-166 Backbay Reclamation, HT Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

02.02.2022 15.04.2024 24.07.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 22.03.2019, he approached Opposite Party for insurance of his vehicle bearing no. DL 07 CT 9345 for a period of one year i.e. from 28.03.2019 to 27.03.2020. Complainant stated that pervious policy has expired on 27.03.2019. Complainant stated that Opposite Party approved the application and issued a policy. The period of the policy was from 28.03.2019 to 27.03.2020 and IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 9,00,000/-. Complainant stated that he paid a premium of Rs. 23,191/- and No Claim Bonus was claimed by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,251/- as 35% of the basic premium. Complainant stated that on 18.03.2020 the vehicle of the complainant was stolen and on the same day an FIR was registered with the concerned police station. Complainant stated that he also informed the said incident to the Opposite Party and in this regard Opposite Party sent an Executive Officer to the residence of the complainant and he collected the copy of the FIR and other relevant documents for processing the claim. On 28.07.2021, untraced report was accepted by the concerned court. Complainant stated that in the first week of August 2020 he submitted all the required documents to the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that after three months he received a call from the Opposite Party who informed the complainant that some documents were required to process the claim. Complainant stated that Executive Officer of Opposite Party told that Complainant did not disclose about the factum of the previous claim that the complainant claimed from the erstwhile insurance company while processing

the application and Complainant availed No Claim Bonus under the existing policy. Complainant stated that total claim amount was assessed to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/-. Complainant stated that on 24.11.2020 Executive Officer of Opposite Party forced the complainant to make a statement that “main Vinesh Kumar Putra shree Om Prakash Niwasi E-13, New Seema Puri, Delhi 95 meri gadi Scorpio Jiska No. DL 7CT 9345 tha jo ki 18.03.2020 chori ho gai thi, jiska main apki company me claim kiya tha, jiski policy no. 2311100435474200000 jisme mere agent ki galti se 35 % NCB false tha isliye meri insurance company se agrah hai ki mujhe meri IDV ka 35 % kat kar diya jaye, mujhe koi apati nahi hai.” Complainant stated that on 26.11.2020, he received a cheque for an amount of Rs. 4,44,292/- from the Opposite Party and Opposite Party further directed to complainant to deposit the cheque in the loan account and bring NOC and thereafter the rest of the amount would be credited in the account of the complainant. On 24.12.2020 after depositing the NOC Opposite Party released only an amount of Rs. 1,38,740.20 and accordingly total sum of Rs. 5,83,032/- had been paid by the Opposite Party and rest amount i.e.Rs. 3,63,968/- wasstill pending. On 13.07.2021 Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party but it did not give any reply. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to declare the Opposite Party as deficient in providing the services and

Rs. 3,16,968/- along with interest @ 24% from the date of payment was made to the Opposite Party. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. It is admitted that Opposite Party had insured the vehicle of the Complainant for the period from 28.03.2019 to 27.03.2020. The total insured declared value was Rs. 9,00,000/-. It is alleged that the Complainant had fraudulently claimed No Claim Bonus to the tune of Rs. 3,251/- by concealing the fact that he had taken insurance claim for the insured vehicle during the previous year. It is stated that as the claimant has taken the insurance claim in the previous year so he was not entitled to claim No Claim Bonus of 35 % of the insurance policy. The theft of the vehicle is not denied. It is stated that after deducting the 35 % of the IDV, the Complainant was paid Rs. 5,83,032/-.  It is stated that the Complainant has also arrived at settlement with the Opposite Party and under the said settlement he has received the above mentioned amount of Rs. 5,83,032/-.

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3.  The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Ms. Shweta Pokhriyal, wherein, she has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the parties. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party to address the arguments. The case of the Complainant is that his vehicle was insured by the Opposite Party. His vehicle was stolen and the Opposite Party paid an amount of Rs. 5,83,032/- whereas the IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 9,00,000/-. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party has wrongly withheld the balance amount of Rs. 3,16,968/-. His case is that this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
7. The case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant has concealed the fact that in the previous policy he had taken insurance claim. In the policy issued by the Opposite Party the Complainant had fraudulently taken No Claim Bonus of 35% of the policy premium by concealing the fact that he did not receive any insurance claim in the previous policy. It is the case of the Opposite Party that after deducting the 35 % of the IDV the remaining amount of Rs. 5,83,032/- was paid to the Complainant after he arrived at a settlement with the Opposite Party.
8. In his affidavit, the Complainant has stated that the Executive Officer forced the Complainant to make a statement on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 100/- regarding the alleged settlement under which he was paid an amount of  Rs. 5,83,032/-. Meaning thereby the Complainant wants to say that this settlement was signed by him under coercion and that he did not sign it voluntarily. In this regard, it is important to be noted that the Complainant has not made any complaint against the said officer of the Opposite Party who had obtained the signatures of the Complainant under force. Therefore, this plea taken by the Complainant cannot be accepted. Moreover, it is the settled law that the cases where allegations of cheating, coercion etc. are made, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the such cases.
9. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and the complaint is without any merit. Same is dismissed.
10. Order announced on 24.07.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)