DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.533/2012

Shri Parth Singh Yadav

S/o Shri Bhoop Singh

House No. 36, Lado Sarai

New Delhi

                                                                                    ….Complainant

Versus

M/s HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Directors

Plot No. C-9, 3^rd Floor,

Pearl Best Heights-II

Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura,

New Delhi-110034

M/s HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

6^th Floor, Leela Business Park,

Andheri, Kurla Road,

Andheri East Mumbai - 400059

        ….Opposite Parties

       Date of Institution    :         08.10.2012

       Date of Order            :         02.02.2022

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi

The Complainant has sought direction for the payment of Rs.2,79,000/- towards insurance claim alongwith interest @24% p.a. from the date of loss of vehicle till its realization; Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for harassment etc. and Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges.

            Facts leading to the case are that the Complainant being owner of the one Indigo-LX TDI car bearing Registration No. HR-26-AV-0941 got the insurance cover of Rs.2,79,000/- from the M/s HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as OP) against the premium of Rs.13,867/- paid vide cheque No.027625 dated 21.10.2011. As alleged that the agent of OP issued cover note bearing no. 002300924825 for the period 22.10.2011 to 21.10.2012. The same is exhibited as Annexure C-2. It is further averred that the said vehicle was stolen on 20.11.2011 during night from Lado Sarai New Delhi(near his residence). The Complainant lodged complaint vide DD No.33A dated 20/21-11-2011 P.S. Saket. FIR was lodged on 30.11.2011. Also informed the OP again who demanded copy of FIR. It was submitted and exhibited as Annexure C-3. It is further averred that at the time of issuance of policy, agent of the OP briefed the Complainant about the special discount upto 25%. Necessary documents were also submitted to OP for processing of the claim.

            The OP repudiated the claim citing the grounds: that the Complainant intimated the claim to OP after 18 days from date of occurrence whereas details of policy and other documents were not given to him. The OP has raised preliminary objections to the claim of complainant. It is further added that the policy was repudiated because he had fraudulently given false facts and concealed material facts from the OP. The Complainant had provided the previous policy for his said vehicle of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. bearing Policy No.214790/31/2011/8899 on the basis of which he cornered the ‘No Claim Bonus’ of 25% when this policy was verified from the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., it did not subsist, meaning thereby, the Complainant has provided incorrect, false and fabricated policy. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. sent the verification report with remark “this policy does not pertain to our office. It is manipulated through Computer, hence, it is a fraud policy”. It is also averred that the contract of the insurance is governed by principle of UTMOST GOOD FAITH. The Complainant also gave address in the policy which is found contrary to the address given in the FIR. It is also alleged that the complainant did not give certain documents timely and the OP wrote letter dated 10.03.2012 for submission of documents.

                Both the parties submitted evidences by way of affidavits and written arguments. Rejoinder is also on record. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.

            The Commission has gone into the material on record carefully. It is noticed that the OP has appointed Suraksha Enterprises for investigation of the claim of the complainant. It is also noted that the evidence by way of affidavit of Sunil Malhotra of Surakhsa Enterprises to assess the loss was also filed. The investigation report is also placed on record and the conclusion of the said report in specific is gone though which brings out the following points inter alia as under:-

1. vehicle in question had been stolen.
2. The previous policy issued by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., is fake and there is a mis-representation of facts.

Despite this fact that the vehicle in question was stolen but the incontrovertible evidence of fake/concealment of facts cannot be over looked. The report received from the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. with the remark that “the policy is manipulated through computer and was not issued by the said Company”. It goes to establish that the insured had given wrong/manipulated insurance cover to get the benefit of the 25% on “No Claim Bonus” from the HDFC Ergo i.e. OP.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that since Complainant has misled the OP by providing the fake document and principle of trust has been belied, hence the very policy is void as is into.  

The OP cannot be declared negligent in its conduct. As such, the complaint is devoid of merit and claim is rejected accordingly. No order as to costs.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.