Haryana

StateCommission

A/66/2016

HDFC ERGO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARAMJIT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL AGGARWAL

30 Jan 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                    

                                                         First Appeal No.66 of 2016

Date of Institution: 22.01.2016

                                                               Date of Decision: 30.01.2018

 

HDFC Ergo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Corporate Office 5^th Floor, Tower-1, Stellar IT Park, C-25, Sector 62, Noida 201301 and at Opposite Mini Secretariat Sector 12 Karnal through Pankaj Singh.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Paramjit Singh S/o Shri Gurnam Singh R/o Village Gondar, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal.

                                      ….. Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Himanshu Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It is alleged by complainant that he got his Combine insured from opposite party for the period 23.04.2011 to 22.04.2012 and insured Declared Value (IDV) was Rs.8,50,000/-.  On 24.04.2011 his combine met with an accident on Nasirabad road within the jurisdiction of Police Station (P.S.) Kishangarh, Rajasthan and FIR No.67 dated 24.04.2011 was registered.  Matter was brought to notice of Opposite Party (O.P.)/Insurance company and surveyor inspected his combine.  From place of accident he brought his combine to Bhunnaheri and spent Rs.61,000/- on transportation.  He got the loss assessed from private surveyor  and as per his opinion it was totally damaged.  He submitted claim with O.P., but, the same was closed without any reason vide letter dated 02.07.2011.  The O.ps. be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.8,50,000/- qua loss of combine and Rs.One lac on transportation etc. besides Rs.50,000/- as mental harassment etc.

2.      In reply it was alleged by insurance company that at the time of obtaining insurance policy complainant produced previous insurance policy bearing No.74329276, but, the same was found to be fake.  On the basis of previous insurance policy physical verification of the combine was not conducted. Even otherwise he informed about this incident in the last week of May 2011 i.e. after about one month, whereas according to the terms and conditions of insurance policy he was supposed to give information immediately.  As per FIR Baldish Singh S/o Anoop Singh was driving combine whereas complainant produced licence of Kalbinder Singh S/o Harbhajan Singh. It was grave misconduct on the part of complainant and that is why his claim was rightly repudiated. Gurvinder Singh Bahri was appointed as surveyor by them and he inspected vehicle on 30.05.2012.  As per his report loss was to the tune of Rs.4,05,900/-.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 23.10.2015 and directed as under:-

“We accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.3,90,900/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 22.12.2011 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- for the litigation expenses.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that insurance policy No.74329276 was not issued by Iffco Tokio which is clear from the perusal of e-mail dated 15.01.2016. Believing previous insurance policy produced by complainant, copy of which is Annexure A-4, vehicle was not inspected.  In this way he obtained this policy by fraud and is not entitled to any compensation. As per terms and conditions, complainant was supposed to inform immediately. Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission have opined about ‘immediately’ and when the matter should be reported to the insurance company.  It is opined that matter should be informed immediately without any loss of time and if there is any delay then insured is not entitled for any compensation.  Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that he was not entitled for compensation and the insurance company rightly repudiated his claim. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects, so impugned order dated 23.10.2015 be set aside. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another  2011 AIR SC (Civil) 903 and Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Harcharan Rai Chandan Lal, JT 2004 (8) SC 8. Opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.3269 of 2014 titled as Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh.Anand Singh decided on 27.04.2016, in Revision petition No.3049 of 2014 titled as M/s HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagchand Saini decided on 04.12.2014, revision petition No.4166 of 2011 titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh.Pawan Kumar decided on 29.05.2014, NIA Vs.Trilochan  Jane, first appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009 and in Satpal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 518 2013 (3).

7.      This argument is of no avail. As per letter Ex.O2 issued by appellant-O.P. they got previous insurance policy verified from Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and not Iffco tokio.  It is specifically mentioned in letter Ex.O2 that previous insurance policy was not issued by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and he forged previous policy.  As O.Ps. pleaded about reliance general insurance policy, there was no opportunity for complainant to produce report regarding insurance policy issued by Iffco Tokio.  Had it been alleged by O.Ps. that Iffco Tokio has denied issuance of previous policy then even  it could have been a different matter.

8.      Further, delay in the present case is not fatal because it pertains to accident and not theft.  Right of a party may be adversely affected in case of theft because insurance company may not be able to get traced stolen vehicle due to passage of time.  In the present case vehicle met with an accident and was inspected by surveyor of O.P.  It is no-where alleged by him that the vehicle was further damaged by the complainant, so right of insured cannot be denied only on this ground when surveyor appointed by insurance company has assessed the loss. Learned District Forum  has granted compensation as assessed by surveyor in his report Ex.O4.  Appellant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because they are based on different facts and are also pertaining to theft of vehicle.

9.      Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly, appeal is hereby dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

January 30th, 2018     Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member        

                                    Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench

 s.k