Delhi

New Delhi

CC/517/2017

Nitik Arya - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Dec 2019

ORDER

 

 

 

                  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                   (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                           ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                   NEW DELHI-110001

 

            Case No.TC/ 517/2017                                        Dated :

 

NitikArya

S/o Devendra Singh,

R/o E- 104,Happy Home Appartments,

 Sector – 7, Dwarka , Plot  No. 12 A,

New Delhi - 110075                                                                                                                                                                      ……Complainant

 

Versus

            HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd

            Ground Floor, Ambadeep Building – 14

            Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

            New  Delhi- 110001

                        …….Opposite Party

            H.M. VYAS – MEMBER

 

                                                                        ORDER

 

 

Initially the complaint was filed with District Forum VII, however the same was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file the same with appropriate Forum having jurisdiction. Thereafter, the complaint has been filed in this Forum.

The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was owner of JETTA  car bearing registration number DL10CC3539 which was insured vide policy number 2311201350773100001. On 02/03/2017 he parked his car in the parking lots Sector 18 and on return could not find his car.He called the Insurance Company that his car was missing. Thereafter, the car was spotted and informed the Insurance Company  in this regard that car has been located. No police complaint was made.

On 07/03/2017, the complainant lost a key in the market of which the police complaint dated 07/03/2017 was lodged. Thereafter, he informed the Volkswagon workshop for lockset change on 08/03/2017 and the complainant was advised to come to workshop the next day.

Thereafter, the said car was stolen between 08/03/2017 and 09/03/2017around 20.30 hours – 1:30 hours and  the FIR under Section 154 CRPC was lodged with Police Station Safdarjung, New Delhi.

The OP filed written statement/ version after notice stating that this Forum does not have the territorial Jurisdiction and that disputed question of facts and law attracting oral and documentary evidence and as such the same cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings by this Forum. It is also stated that the OP took 22 days to register the claim i.e. on 31/03/2017. It is also stated that as per the survey report 1 key was in the car at the time of theft and the same was mentioned in the investigator’s report  and the FIR  dated 09/03/2017. The complainant has acted  completely negligence  manner leaving one original key in the car and had not taken  precautious measures when the alleged theft the original key got stolen on 07/03/2017. The repudiation has been stated  to be correct as there is no claim against his policy. Prayer to dismiss the complaint has been made.

Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit. They also addressed oral arguments.

We have considered the material placed before us  and the submissions to the parties with relevant provisions of law.

The main arguments of the Ld. Cl.for OP  are about territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and that there was delay intimation about the theft of the car  by 22 days. Further, the complainant was negligent as one original key  of the car was left in the vehicle. The matter requires oral evidence of witnesses to address disputed questions of law which cannot be decided in summary proceedings and therefore, the claim was repudiated and the claim was closed as “no claim”.

Per contra it was argued  on behalf of the complainant that in the FIR he simply mentioned that a key was inside the car and further he fortified  his argument by referring  to the complaint dated 07/03/2017 filed with the police authorities about the lost key of the car.

As per the record placed before us, it is clear that the complainant informed the police, lodged FIR and also intimated the insurer the same day of incidence of theft of his car. The car was under insurance during the period when  the theft took place . Perusal of the repudiation letter  does not speak  of submits made in the written statement and the evidence are inter-alia reference  to deal information of the fact to the insurer. The said  argument is rejected  in the premise of facts on record that the OP was intimated  the same day and FIR lodged  by the complainant. The ground of rejection / repudiation of the claim is contrary to the submissions of the OP. The repudiation letter was issued  from Connaught Place which is under the territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.

In our considered view the argument of the OP does not hold good as per the documents on record wherefrom it is clear that  the complaint of the key loss was made on 07/03/2017 and that the car was stolen between  08/03/2017 and 09/03/2017 as per the FIR. Immediate information  to the insurer was also given in this regard. The repudiation was therefore, unjust. The OP rejected the claim without taking note of these facts  and as such the rejection of claim was on unfounded grounds.

The arguments of the OP is that the matter involves disputed questions requiring oral, documentary  and witnesses  evaluation is also not tenable. In view of the foregoing facts where the theft of the vehicle  information to the police and the insurer  are evident on record. The same is, therefore, rejected.

In view of above, we are of the considered view that once the FIR  of theft has been  lodged and the insurer informed that the loss of time  and that the vehicle was under the insurer cover and the policy issued by the OP, their emergence no lapse on the part of complainant. The repudiation by the OP is not justified in the premise offorgoing facts and the denial of the claim was therefore on account of whimsy ground. We therefore, holding the OP to be deficient in service and as direct as under:-

1. Direct the OP to pay to the complainant balance of the sum assured after adjust the account of Axis Bank, if any,  with 9% simple interest from the date of filing i.e. 16/11/2017 till realization.
2. Litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Orders shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on:  10/12/2019.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                                                (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

               (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                 (HM VYAS)

             MEMBER                                                                                MEMBER