District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 50/2022.
Date of Institution:24.01.2022.
Date of Order:31.03.2023.
Geeta Bala wife of Shri Parveen Kumar, resident of 3A/WH-21, NIT, Faridabad at present House No.2K/76, B.P.NIT, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. The General Manager HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office: Ist floor, HDFC House, 165-166, Backbay Reclaimation, H.T. Parekh Marg, Church Gate,, Mumbai – 400 020.
2. Manager, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company, Shop NO. 35 & 36, ist floor, Om Shubham Tower, Neelam Chowk, NIT, Faridabad – 121001.
…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.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Neeraj Sethi, counsel for the complainant.
Ms. Sanjana Akhilesh Singh , counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was registered owner of Honda Activa Scooter bearing regn. NO. HR-51-BM-3830 make 2017, with Engine NO. 57197 & Chasis No. 57144. The said Honda Activa Scooter was under insurance vide policy NO. 2312100490779900000 issued by opposite parties and valid from 10.09.2019 to 09.09.2020 for sum insured Rs.29894/-. The said Honda Activa Scooter was stolen in the late evening on 15.07.2020 near the house NO. 3E/33,B.P. when the complainant was gone to meet her relative. When the complainant found her scooty stolen then she called the police dialing 100 number and a PCR van came to the site and try to locate the scooter nearby but failed to do so and then PCR officials advised the complainant to lodge FIR for the said theft. The complainant lodged an FIR in the next morning bearing NO. 0212 dated 16.7.2020 at S.G.M. Nagar and also informed opposite party No.2 about the theft, in response the officials of opposite party No.2 visit the complainant and enquiry about the theft and also visit the site and gathered all the documents and also gathered video footage from the site at where the theft was happened. After that the complainant had fulfilled all the conditions as required by the opposite parties time to time to claim the insurance and also submitted untraced report dated 14.08.2020 and other relevant documents to opposite parties again on dated 02.01.2021 and 12.02.2021 through courier as asked by opposite party No.1. Even after receiving all the necessary documents, R.C and key of the Honda Activa Scooter of the complainant insured by opposite party which was valid from 10.09.2019 to 09.09.2020 opposite party had not settled the insurance claim of the complainant and regularly harassing the complainant without her any fault. The complainant sent legal notice dated 22.11.2021 to the opposite parties through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay the claim of insured amount of Rs.29,894/- alongwith 12% interest from the date of theft.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that as per the FIR insured vehicle was allegedly theft on 15.07.2020 however FIR was registered only on 16.07.2020 at 12:45 hrs. and as such there was a delay in registration of FIR with the police. Further as per the complaint occurrence of alleged crime was between 18 hrs. to 17 hrs. however as per the statement of the complainant her vehicle was allegedly theft on between 17:30 hrs. to 22:15 hrs, hence there was contradiction in the statement of the complainant regarding the crime itself. From the same it was clear that the story of theft of the vehicle was shrouded with doubt. Similarly, information with regard to the theft was not given to the opposite party/insurance company and the claim was filed belatedly in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant had not provided all the requisite documents to the answering opposite party company despite repeated reminders whereas it had been specifically mentioned in the notices served upon him that sought documents/information were necessary for claim settlement. The complainant had been served query letters and provided ample opportunity and time by the opposite party company but received no cooperation and response from the complainant due to her ulterior motives and malafide intentions. The complainant with the intention to mislead this Hon’ble Commission had concealed the fact that various query letters were sent to the complainant for providing the below mentioned details/items and when inspte of various letters the desired requirements were not shared, the claim was rejected for non submission of requirements as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
i. 100 report or received copy of first intimation to police, purchase invoice, vehicle service record, rent agreement, CCTV footage, ID & statement of Gurmeet Kaur.
ii. RTO forms NO. 26, 28, 29, 30 duly signed (4 copies each).
iii. Untraced report u/s 173 CRPC certified by court.
Iv letter of Indemnity & subrogation duly notarized.
v. NEFT details of the complainant.
Replying opposite party had been writing letters to complainant to provide relevant details to enable it to consider his claim, however complainant had not submitted the required details as mentioned in the queries & deliberately not provided related items which ha d compelled answering opposite party to reject the claim of the complainant vide rejection letter. Opposite parties 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 parties– HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited with the prayer to: a) pay the claim of insured amount of Rs.29,894/- alongwith 12% interest from the date of theft. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Geeta Bala, Ex.C-1 – RC, Ex.C2 – insurance policy, Ex.C-3 – FIR, Ex.C-4 – order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer Daily Lok Adalat-Cum JMIC, Ex.C-5 – untraced report, Ex.C-6 – Antim report, Ex.C-7 – letter dated 29.08.2020, Ex.C-8 & 9 – receipts, Ex.C-10 – legal notice, Ex.C-11 & 12 – postal receipts.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex. RW1/A – affidavit of Shweta Pokriyal, Senior Manager, HDFC General Insurance Company Ltd., having its office at Stellar Park C-25, sector-62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201301, Ex.RW1(colly) – Motor Insurance – Two Wheeler Comprehensive Policy, Ex.RW1/2 – claim form, Ex.RW1/3 – letter dated 17.10.2020,, Ex.RW1/4 – Statement of Geeta Bela, Ex.RW1/5 - No claim letter dated January 5,2021.
6. In this case, the complainant was registered owner of Honda Activa Scooter bearing regn. NO. HR-51-BM-3830 make 2017, with Engine NO. 57197 & Chasis No. 57144. The said Honda Activa Scooter was under insurance vide policy NO. 2312100490779900000 issued by opposite parties and valid from 10.09.2019 to 09.09.2020 for sum insured Rs.29894/-vide Ex.C2. The said Honda Activa Scooter was stolen in the late evening on 15.07.2020 near the house NO. 3E/33,B.P. when the complainant was gone to meet her relative. When the complainant found her scooty stolen then she called the police dialing 100 number and a PCR van came to the site and try to locate the scooter nearby but failed to do so and then PCR officials advised the complainant to lodge FIR for the said theft. The complainant lodged an FIR in the next morning bearing NO. 0212 dated
16.7.2020 at S.G.M. Nagar vide Ex.C3 and also informed opposite party No.2 about the theft,. On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated Jan5,2021 Ex.RW1/5 on the ground of the required documents.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed on non standard basis.
8. For the adjudication of the present complaint and the issue therein, we place reliance on the Supreme Court Authority Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company in Civil Appeal NO. 2703/2010 decided on 25.3.2010.
In Amalendu Sahoo’s case, there was violations of the Terms &
conditions of the policy and the insurance benefits were denied by the insurance company. In the above mentioned case, further reliance was placed by the Supreme Court on:
a). New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad Pathak, and
b). National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal
Wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that the claim could have been settled on non standard basis in the event of any breach of condition upto 50%. Once the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle for the loss caused to the insured, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner. When there is breach of the condition of the policy, the insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis.
9. Following the aforesaid guidelines, this Commission is of the opinion that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto. The complaint is allowed for claim to be settled on non standard basis.
IDV value of vehicle : Rs.29,894.00
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000.00
: Rs 28,894..00
Deduction 15% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 4,334.10
Total : Rs. 24,559.90
10 The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 24,559.90 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization, subject to submission of documents as required by the opposite parties. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This payment will be subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29,30 and Form 35. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. File be consigned to the record room. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.
Announced on: 31.03.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
