Delhi

North East

CC/43/2022

Smt. Lucky Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.43/22

 

In the matter of:

	Smt. Lucky Aggarwal, W/o Shri Sunil Aggarwal, R/o: H.No F-1/31, DDA Flats, Sundar Nagri, Delhi 110093 Also At: 4/5, Flat No. H 3, UGF, Rajendre Nagar, Sector 2, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad U.P	Complainant
	Versus
	HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Office at: 2 Floor, Tower 1, Stellar IT Park, C 25, Sector 62, Noida, U.P 201301	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

24.02.2022 29.05.2024 08.08.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that she has purchased an insurance policy from the Opposite Party for her vehicle bearing no.UP14 AX 6099. The period of the said policy was from 29.08.2014 to 28.08.2015. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 12,85,470/-. Complainant stated that the said vehicle was driven by her husband who parked the vehicle at Majnu ka Tila Gurudwara, Delhi. After parking the vehicle, her husband went to place near Ambala. During the intervening night of 27/28.08.2015 at about 02:15 a.m., it was found that the vehicle was stolen by some unknown person. Complainant stated that her husband made efforts to search the vehicle but he was failed to trace the said vehicle. Complainant stated that an FIR             no. 011113/2015 was registered with e-PS M.V Act with PS Crime Branch and in this regard a PCR call dated 08.10.2015 was given by the office of Deputy Commissioner, Police Control Room Delhi. Complainant stated that Ist call taker report dated 28.08.2015 from Delhi Police Control Room was also produced. Complainant stated that she had also reported to the MLO Transport Authority Ghaziabad regarding the theft of the vehicle. Complainant stated that she informed all concerned authorities regarding the theft of the said vehicle. Complainant stated that Opposite Party investigator had reported an ambiguous report having contradictory view. Complainant stated that date and time of incident were considered as well as location of incident was admitted by the investigator of Opposite Party. Brief narration of the incident was correctly given by the investigator of the Opposite Party and police had found the incident correct but Opposite Party had given contradictory report. Complainant stated that in para 11, claim was accepted for settlement but Opposite Party had given a false report. Complainant stated that Opposite Party had already filed a W.P No. 1191/2016 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi which was withdrawn by Opposite Party vide order dated 16.04.2016. Complainant stated that Delhi Police submitted its untraced report which was accepted by the concerned court. Complainant stated that she had already handed over all the keys to the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that she requested Opposite Party for the claim of the said vehicle many times but Opposite Party failed to pay the claim. On 12.10.2021, Complainant visited the office of the Opposite Party upon which Opposite Party had promised to settle the matter within 03 months and also promised to pay the whole claim amount but no settlement had been made and no payment was given by the Opposite Party despite several requests. On 21.12.2021, Complainant sent a legal notice but Opposite Party did not respond. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for an amount of Rs. 12,85,470/- i.e. IDV of the vehicle along with interest @ 24 % p.a. from the date of theft.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the claim is time barred and there is a delay of 06 and half years in filing the complaint. It is stated that the Complainant has concocted a baseless and false story. It is alleged that the Complainant did not provide the required information and documents to the Opposite Party for forensic investigation. The Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is stated that despite issuing various letters and reminders, the Complainant did not provide the necessary information/documents. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her case filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Manoj Prajapati, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that her vehicle had a valid insurance policy issued by the Opposite Party. The said vehicle was stolen when her husband had gone to a place near Ambala after parkind the vehicle near Majnu ka Tila parking. Her case is that despite her various request, her claim was rejected wrongly by the Opposite Party.
7. The case of the Opposite Party is that the claim is time barred as there is delay of more than 06 years in filing the complaint. The case of the Opposite Party is that it has written various letters and reminders whereby the Complainant was required to submit some information/documents such as proof of the visit of her husband to Ambala. As per the case of the Complainant her husband had gone to Ambala along with his friend in the car of his friend. No toll tax receipt or any other evidence was provided regarding the visit to Ambala and return to Delhi. It was also asked from the Complainant that the engine of the car was designed so that it would not start if the ID code registered in the immobilizer computer and keys ID Code do not match. It was also demanded from the Complainant regarding the parking of the vehicle that whether it was authorized parking or parking receipt etc.
8. The case of the Complainant is that she requested several times the Opposite Party to pass her claim but the claim was not passed. The perusal of the record shows that the Opposite Party had issued various letters for submitting the required information and documents for processing the claim of the Complainant and in this regard various reminders dated 14.09.2017, 27.09.2017 and 10.10.2017 were sent to the Complainant. The Complainant did not reply the said reminders and therefore vide letter dated 26.11.2018 the claim of the Complainant was closed.
9. The main contention of the Opposite Party is that the complaint is time barred. The claim was closed by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 26.11.2018. Therefore, the cause of action started from 26.11.2018. The case of the Complainant is that she visited many times the office of the Opposite Party and sent e-mails to the Opposite Party and legal notice to the Opposite Party. In our opinion the cause of action acquired on 26.11.2018 and sending of  e-mail and legal notice does not extend the period of limitation. Nor any visit has been proved by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. Even visiting the Opposite Party does not extend the period of limitation. In this case the period of limitation started from 26.11.2018 and the complaint was filed on 24.02.2022 i.e. after more than 2 years i.e. after expiry of the period of limitation. The application of the Complainant for seeking condonation of the delay does not explain satisfactorily the delay in filing the complaint. Therefore, in our opinion the delay cannot be condoned. Hence, it is held that the complaint is time barred.
10. Further, from the record it is reveal that the claim of the Complainant was closed and the same was not repudiated. It has been discussed above that the claim could not be processed by the Opposite Party as the Complainant did not submit the required information and documents to the Opposite Party and for this reason the claim was closed by the Opposite Party. In our opinion, this is not a deficiency of service.
11. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed.
12. Order announced on 08.08.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)