Delhi

East Delhi

CC/518/2014

THAKUR DIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HERO HONDA - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2018

ORDER

             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.       518/2014

                                                                                                   Date of Institution               04/06/2014

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               23/01/2018        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       25/01/2018                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr Thakur Din, adult   

s/o Sh Pyare Lal 

R/o- D-2/469, Block D2,

Nand Nagri, Delhi 110095 ……………………….……………...…………….Complainant

                             

                                      Vs

1-M/s Himgiri Automobiles Pvt Ltd.

a-19, New Jhilmil Industrial Area, 

Jhilmil, Delhi 110093

 

2-The Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

101 Hero Vertical, BMC House,

Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 .……..……………..….…………..Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocate - Rajesh Kumar Sharma

Opponent’s Advocate  -     Suraj Kumar

 

Quorum  Sh Sukhdev  Singh       President

                  Dr P N Tiwari                Member

                  Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member                                                                                             

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  - Member  

This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for the deficiency in services of OP2 for not passing insurance claim.                                                                                                        

Brief Facts of the case –

Complainant purchased a new Hero Splendor motor cycle having chasis no. MBLHA10AME9B00608 and engine no. HA10EJE9B00760 on 27/02/2014 for a sum of amount Rs 44,147/-(Ex CW1/1, 1A &1B). The said motor cycle was insured from OP2/National Insurance Co. (ExCW1//2) and paid Rs 1365/-as premium amount vide cover note no. 39010231136204232339 valid from 27/02/2014 to 25/02/2015. The same vehicle was temporarily registered vide registration no. HR-99-SF-Temp-1270 (Ex CW1/3 & 3A).  

It was stated that in the month of March 2014, the vehicle got burnt in front of his residence at D2/450, Nand Nagri, Delhi so police was informed on 100 number and to fire brigade also (CW1/4 & CW1/5). Complainant took his burnt vehicle to the authorized service centre of OP2  (Ex CW1/6) who told that the vehicle was completely burnt (Ex CW1/7,7A, & 7B).

Complainant gave intimation to OP2 who had sent an executive at the residence of complainant and assured for the replacement of vehicle or would pay the cost within 7 days. When complainant did not get any satisfactory reply, visited OP1 office, but OP1 told that after the inspection by Insurance co., claim would be processed. Even after delay and non reply and careless attitude of OP2,  filed this complaint and claimed refund of the cost of the motor cycle Rs 41,940/-with compensation for harassment and mental agony Rs 50,000/-and litigation charges Rs 25,000/-

 

After receiving notices, OP1 submitted written statement and denied the allegations of complainant that the vehicle in question was ever purchased from elsewhere and admitted that the said motor cycle was purchased from Haryana and not from Delhi as exhibit submitted by complainant showed that it was M/s Kadian Automobiles, Panipat, Haryana and not from Himgiri, but brought in total burnt condition. The temporarily registration was from RTO, Gurgaon, Haryana vide registration no. HR 99 SF TPM 1270.

It was admitted that complainant had brought his burnt motorcycle to their workshop/Himgiri Automobiles/OP1 who had given report as total loss vide job card no. 2286 and told to inform the Insurance Co./ OP2 for the damage of the vehicle and told complainant to take back the vehicle after being inspected by surveyor, OP1 had given intimation to OP2, but no surveyor ever inspected the vehicle, so complainant had not taken back his vehicle from OP1/workshop.

 

OP2/National Insurance Co. submitted written statement and denied all the allegations. It was stated by OP2 that complainant had to inform immediately about the loss of his vehicle as the incident was accidental damage due to fire. It was admitted that insurance cover note was issued by OP2 and vehicle was registered at Gurgaon, Haryana, hence the cause of action had arisen at Haryana and not in Delhi. It was also stated that complainant’s claim was neither rejected nor settled or processed due to non availability of vehicle claim documents. Thus, there was no deficiency on the part of OP2 so the complaint may be dismissed.  

 

Complainant filed his rejoinder and evidence on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the facts and evidence submitted by him were correct and true.

OP1 filed their evidence on affidavit through Mr R K Tomar, Manager HR with OP1, stated that the said vehicle was brought on rickshaw in total burnt condition. It was also stated that OP1 had informed complainant to give intimation to OP2 for their claim process and admitted that online claim number was generated by OP2, but vehicle was not inspected by surveyor. Complainant did not come for any follow up for claim of his burnt motor cycle which was lying at the workshop of OP1. All such evidences were on record.  

OP2 also filed their evidence on affidavit through Mr Anil Kumar Lal, Manager Legal with OP2 who stated that the said vehicle was insured by them and had issued cover note. It was admitted that the vehicle had IDV of 41940/-and were duty bound to pay the claim as accidental fire took place on the new vehicle at the residence of complainant, but complainant had never submitted claim documents or informed about the accident of fire immediately to OP2.  So, OP2 had no deficiency in their services and prayed to dismiss this complaint.  

 

Arguments were heard from both the parties and order was reserved.

After going through all the facts and evidences on record, it was observed that OP1/workshop  had given intimation to OP2 for appointing surveyor for assessing the damages as per the evidence submitted by OP1 on affidavit vide claim no. 39010231136290126296 through online (www.herocorponline.com)on dated 05/03/2014, but surveyor inquired from complainant at his residence at Nand Nagri, Delhi and did not inspect the vehicle or submitted the report of total damage of said motor cycle. It was also noted from evidence of OP2 that insurance cover note was issued and fire had occurred accidently which caused total damage to the new motor cycle. This fact cannot be over looked.

As admitted by OP2 that the claim was neither repudiated nor passed, so there was no deficiency on the part of OP2 and prayed for dismissal of this complaint.   

By going through entire facts and evidences on record, we have come to the conclusion that complainant had put correct facts about total damages of his new vehicle supported by his own affidavit. As not passing the claim despite of generating claim number through online by OP2 in reference to OP1 claim of 19 vehicles including the said vehicle, should had immediately appointed surveyor for assessing the damages, was neither done by OP2 nor submitted surveyor report and also not mentioning in their reply and in evidence, proves deficiency in services of OP2. It had been admitted by OP2 that claim was neither repudiated nor processed meaning thereby that the claim was still pending for disposal. In non submission of surveyor report despite of having knowledge, it proves deficiency of OP2.

Seeing the merits of the complaints, it is clear that vehicle/motor cycle was insured by OP2, accidental fire occurred on vehicle as evident by police documents and online claim number with intimation of damages of 19 vehicles to OP2, proves deficiency of OP2. OP1 is exonerated from any liability. Hence we come to the conclusion that the present complaint has merit against OP2 and so we pass the following order as –

1. OP2 is directed to process the claim based on IDV of the vehicle within 30 days from the receiving of this order.
2. We also award compensation of Rs 3500/- for harassment for mental agony which shall include litigation charges also.
3. If OP2 fail to comply the order, complainant shall be entitled for 6% interest on entire awarded amount from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties under the Regulation 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005 (in short the CPR) and the file be consigned to Record Room under Regulation 20(1) of the CPR.

(Dr) P N Tiwari,  Member                                                                       Mrs  Harpreet Kaur,  Member                                                                                                                         

                                      

                                                   Sukhdev Singh,  President