District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.013/2020.
Date of Institution: 07.01.2020.
Date of Order: 11.07.2022.
M/s. Transway Cargo Lifters Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limited Company, Now M/s. Areion Logistics Pvt. Ltd., having its Corporate Office situate at SCO No. 100-101, city Centre, 2nd floor, Sector-16, Faridabad, Haryana, (Through is Managing Director Shri Naresh Maheshwari).
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. The HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. ltd., 21st Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14 KG Marg, New Delhi -110001.
2. The HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Corporate Office: 6th floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri – Kurla road, Andheri east, Mumbai – 400 059.
3. The HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered office: Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclaimation, Mumbai – 400 020.
4. Manager, The HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Shubham Tower, Near Fortis Escorts Hospital, Neelam Bata Road, NIT,Faridabad.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Jatinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. D.K.Gosain, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of truck having engine No. BXE11044IZ and chassis No. EBA8559 bearing registration NO. HR-38P-8587 which was got insured from the opposite party vide its insurance policy No. 2315200125363501000 valid from 14.09.2012 to 13.09.2013 for a total IDV value of Rs.8,50,000/-. Unfortunately the insured truck bearing registration No. HR-38P-8587 met with an accident on the intervening night of 25/26.08.2013 when the insured truck was on its way to Cochin to deliver the consignment assigned and when the truck crossed Sawai Madhopur and reached near village Sukhal, the tuck got collided with truck No. RJ-25A-6408 due to heavy rain. Mohd. Wahid s/o Abdul was the driver of the insured truck bearing registration NO. HR-38P-8587 and was having a valid and an effective driving license on the date of accident. The matter was reported to the police and Rapart Roznama Aam No. 846 dated 28.08.2013 was got registered by the Police Authorities of Thana Sukhal District Sawai Madhopur. Upon the accident in question the intimation was passed on to the opposite party The opposite party insurer asked the complainant to get the repairing job done and whatever expenses would be incurred by the complainant would be reimbursed by the opposite party insurer. In the accident, the insured truck was got damaged from the front left side resulting which the cabin was completely damaged whereas the steering wheel alongwith its levers got damaged leaving the truck stationery stand still. The complainant got repaired the insured vehicle on the asking of the opposite party insurer and an amount of Rs.1,97,437/- was spent upon its repairs and the purchase of spare parts, for which the claim was lodged by submitting the claim form and all the original bills/cash memos for repairs and for the purchase of spare parts. Thereafter the complainant started chasing the opposite prty insurer for the payment of the amount spent by the complainant upon the repairs and the purchase of spare parts to make the vehicle truck No. HR-38P-8587 roadworthy. Despite repeated personal visits of the complainant, the opposite party insurer dully delay the matter with one excuse or the other. The complainant sent a legal notice 08.08.2015 but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) make the payment of Rs.1,997,437/- spent by the complainant upon the repairs to make the insured truck roadworthy.
b) pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.25,000/ - as litigation expenses .
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint of the complainant was hopelessly time barred as the opposite party had already closed the subject claim vide its letter dated 15.10.2013 for want of requisite mandatory claim documents. Further the complainant filed an application under section 22-C(1) of Legal Services Authorities Act before Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Faridabad in the month of August 2016, therefore the limitation period could not be enlarged by filing application before Permanent Lok Adalat as it was already barred by limitation.
On receipt intimation of occurrence and damage caused to the vehicle No. HR38-P-8587 with the insurance company on 27.09.2013 in respect of damage allegedly caused to the said vehicle on 25-06.08.2013, the motor claim was registered as claim no. C-230013063040 and the insurance company deputed an independent qualified IRDA licensed surveyor to conduct the spot survey. As information available, the surveyor visited the spot on 28.09.2013 itself but the vehicle was reported to be shifted from the spot to the repairer place. As per further information, the surveyor visited the repairer on 28.09.2013 and it was observed that the insured had already got the vehicle dismantled from the repairer and the repair was going on. As a matter of fact, the complainant failed to supply an deliver the requisite mandatory claim document-information either to the insurance company or to the surveyor. However, the insurance company vide its reminder letter dated 15.10.2013, sought the aforesaid listed documents from the insured. But again the insured/complainant failed to supply and furnish the requisite mandatory claim documents and information to the opposite party so as to enable it to proceed further in respect of the subject claim. It was worth mentioning that the complainant had failed t give any valid justification for not intimating the claim immediately after the accident, when as per the details provided in the policy, the claim can either can either be intimated through the toll free no. or mail or further as per the terms and conditions of the policy, loss was to be intimated immediately to the insurance company however on delay in reporting the claim, the complainant vide letter dated 05.06.2014 admitted its mistake in delayed report of the claim. It was submitted that no-reporting of claim on time and with delay of 32 days without any justified reason and dismantling the vehicle without giving any opportunity to the surveyor to verify the exact nature and quantum of loss goes to the route of insurance contract and amounts to gross violation of the terms of the policy. Further, after elapsing of about 7 months, the insured vide letter dated 05.06.2014 arranged only claim form, towing bill ex-Sawai Madhopur to Faridabad signed by one wahid being dated 10.01.2014 and NEFT details but failed to supply and furnish the remaining listed documents and information. As a matter of fact that the subject claim stands closed vide its letter dated 15.10.2013 for want of requisite mandatory claim documents and information, hence there was no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of opposite party in treating the subject claim as No Claim whereas the entire fault rests with the complainants. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited with the prayer to : a) make the payment of Rs.1,997,437/- spent by the complainant upon the repairs to make the insured truck roadworthy. b) pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs.25,000/ - as litigation expenses .
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Naresh Maheshwari, Managing Director, M/s. TRansway Cargo Lifters Pvtt. Ltd., now known as M/s. Areion Logistics Pvt. Ltd., having its Corporate office situated at SCO NO. 100-101, city Centre, 2nd floor, sEctor-16, Faridabad., Ex.C-1 – RC,, Ex.C-2 Ex.Form 37,, Ex.C-3 – Form-47,, Ex.C-4 – Goods Carrying Vehicle Package Policy, Ex.C-5 – licence, Rapat Rojnama,, Ex.C-7 8 – Bill , Ex.C-9 & 10– repair bills, Ex.C-11 to 14- Bills, Ex.C-15 – legal notice, Ex.C-16 to C-18 – postal receipt, Ex.C-19 & 20- acknowledgements,, Ex.C-21 – order dated 14.01.2019 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party, Ex.RW1/X – affidavit of Shri Vivek Yadav, Senior Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance company Limited, Gurgaon. Ex.OP-1 – letter dated 30.09.2013, Ex.OP-2 – letter dated October 15,2013, Ex.OP-3 – Motor Insurance- Goods Carrying Comprehensive Policy.
6. As per dictum of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the District Commission is empowered to admit a complaint within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The present complaint is time barred under Limitation Act as the opposite party had already closed the subject claim vide its letter dated 15.10.2013 for want of requisite mandatory claim documents. Further the complainant filed an application under section 22-C(1) of Legal Services Authorities Act before Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Faridabad in the month of August 2016, therefore the limitation period could not be enlarged by filing application before Permanent Lok Adalat as it was already barred by limitation. The present complaint has been instituted in the year 2020.
7. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed being time barred. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 11.07.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
