Haryana

StateCommission

A/1086/2015

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

Versus

SUNIL KUMAR KAPOOR - Opp.Party(s)

PRADEEP KUMAR

01 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.1086 of 2015

Date of the Institution:18.12.2015

Date of Decision:01.12.2016

 

HDFC  ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Office 208, Second Floor, Sewa Corporate Suit, Near IFFCO Chowk, M.G. Road, Gurgaon through its Divisional Manager through its Authorized officer.

                                                          .….Appellant

Versus

Sunil Kumar Kapoor S/o Sh. Santosh Kumar Kapoor, R/o House No.165,  Sector-56, District Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                                   ….Respondent

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited -OP is in appeal against the Order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Sunil Kumar has been allowed by directing the OP to reimburse the claim of Rs.27,658/- with interest @9%p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 26.03.2013 till realization and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.      Briefly stated, according to the complainant he got his Car Chevrolet SRV bearing Regd. No.HR-26-AF-2148 insured with the OP vide Policy No.2311200377421900000 with IDV of Rs.3,30,000/- which was valid w.e.f. 27.11.2012 to 07.11.2013. The above said vehicle met with an accident on 21.01.2013 at Gurgaon and the front of the vehicle was totally damaged. The said car was being driven by its driver Shyamal Ghosh and the complainant and his wife were sitting in the said car at the time of accident. In this regard DDR was lodged with the police and the OP was also informed about the accident. The complainant got the said vehicle repaired from Aravali Auto, Gurgaon, an authorized service station and paid a sum of Rs.27,658/- to the said workshop. The complainant submitted the claim, but the OP illegally repudiated on the ground that the driving licence of the person whose name was intimated was not furnished. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the OP to reimburse the clam of Rs.27,658/- with interest, compensation of Rs.15000/- and Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      Contesting the complaint, the OPs pleaded that at the time of alleged accident the complainant/driver of the Car in question was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The complainant deliberately changed the name of the person driving the vehicle to extort undue benefits out of the insurance policy. The complainant did not lodge any DDR and FIR regarding the alleged accident. The matter was reported to the OP after the delay of two days in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.03.2003. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OPs and accepted the complaint vide order dated 01.10.2015 granting the aforesaid relief. 

4.      Against the impugned order, the OP/appellant has filed appeal before us reiterating same pleas as raised by them before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. A perusal of the record clearly shows that the vehicle was duly insured and the accident took place within the subsistence of the insurance policy. Further, at the time of accident, the complainant was sitting on the back seat with his wife, while the vehicle was being driven by driver Shyamlal Ghosh. It was a Chevrolet SRV car which was supposed to be driven by the driver himself and not by the owner of the car, who is in the company of his wife. Moreover, the intimation about the accident was given to the police as well as to the insurance company within couple of days, which could not be considered as violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The plea of the insurance company that the car was infact being driven by the complainant himself has not been proved by the insurance company – OP by producing any cogent evidence. They have, however, chosen a very flimsy piece of evidence in the shape of C.D. having a recorder conversation being attributed to the complainant. In this C.D. it is alleged by OP that the complainant had admitted while talking to some official of the OP that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by the complainant himself and not by Shyamlal Ghosh driver. No reliance can be placed in law on such inadmissible evidence, in the face of the affidavit filed by the complainant that the vehicle was being driven by Shyamlal driver.

5.      Consequently, the conclusions arrived at by the learned are factually correct and we uphold the same. There being no merit in the Appeal filed by OP- Insurance Company, we dismiss the same with no order as to costs. 

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.19,620/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

December 01st, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.