Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/123/2021

Gaurav Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurnace Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Dagar

11 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.      

 

                                                Consumer Complaint No.  123 of 2021

                                                Date of Institution:            26.04.2021

                                                Date of order:                     11.12.2024

 

Gaurav Mittal deceased through Legal Heirs (a) Smt. Babita Mittal aged 32 years widow  (b) Bhavesh Mittal minor aged 7 years son (c) Riya Mittal minor aged 8 years daughter of Sh. Gaurav Mittal son of Sh. Hanuman Mittal, minors through their mother Smt. Babita Mittal natural Guardian of the minors, resident of Ward No.4, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

…..Complainant.

                                                VERSUS

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO-124-125, Sector 8 Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             …..Opposite parties.

 

          COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

 

Before-        Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

(Proceeded under Section 64 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Present:       Shri Amit Kumar Dagar, Advocate for complainants.

Shri Vinod Kumar Chahar, Advocate for the OP.

 

ORDER

                   Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of Vitra Breeza  VDI Car No. HR-19M-1915, which was insured with the OP vide policy No. 2311100355980800001 valid from 22.09.2018 to 21.09.2019 with IDV Rs.7,08,790/-.  It is averred that on 01.09.2019 the insured vehicle was met with an accident. It is further averred that the information about the accident was given to the OP and the OP has given claim No. C230019250899.  It is averred that OP company conducted the survey of the loss through surveyor and found the loss genuine but the claim rejected.  It is further averred that a legal notice was also served upon the OPs but to no effect.  It is further averred that the OPs vide their letter dated 30.10.2019 has repudiated the claim.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OP had filed written statement stating therein that loss date as intimated was 01.09.2019 whereas claim was intimated on 06.09.2019 with no justification of the delay. Complainant has not given a timely intimation to the insurance company whereas it has been specifically mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim, however no such notice was given.

Claim was sent to a surveyor and surveyor submitted its report alongwith the photos of the vehicle. It is averred that from the report and documents submitted by the surveyor, the OP has concluded that  there was many discrepancies were noted during investigation which found a violation of the Motor Package Policy Condition and also tantamount to misrepresentation of material facts  and complainant is  trying to extract  undue money from the insurance company. In view of the above-mentioned representation, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 30.10.2019 due to violation of terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

3.                Ms. Babita Mittal widow of Gourav Mittal has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and documents Ex.CW2/B & Ex.CW2/C and closed the evidence on 29.02.2024.

                   Counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavits Ex.RW-1/A to Ex.RW3/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 19.09.2024

4.                 I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the convinced view that the present complaint has merit and the same deserves acceptance for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

5.                The complainant has fully proved his case by placing on record certain documents.  It is admitted fact that the Vitara Breeza VDI Car No. HR-19M-1915 was insured with the OP.  It is also admitted fact that the vehicle in question was met with an accident 01.09.2019 and damaged in that accident.  The OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30.10.2019 on the ground of 5 days delay in intimation and other discrepancies  which create doubt on the reality  of incident. After perusing the document Ex.R4 & Ex.R5 it found that objections raised by Surveyor and Investigator are not genuine. As per Ex.C9 photographs of the vehicle itself describe the horrible story of the fatal accident. The surveyor (Ex.R5) assessed the loss of the vehicle is Rs.6,68,025/- although the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.7,08,790/- meaning thereby the vehicle in question got damaged more than 95% which means  the vehicle comes under the category of total loss as per law, as for the 5 days delay is concerned to intimate the insurance company is also not tenable.  As per the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and situation of the very terrible accident and in such situation a common man would go to the hospital first for his treatment not for claiming of compensation. So, the person who died in the fatal accident the 5 days delay to intimation to the insurance company is found genuine. The OP has not settled the genuine claim of the complainants which caused deficiency in service on the part of OP due to which the complainants also suffered the mental and physical harassment.  

6.                In the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the complaint is partly allowed with following directions: -

i) To Pay IDV Value Rs. 7,08,790/- (minus 5% of IDV Value deduction of salvage) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 30.10.2019 till its realization.

(ii) To Pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship caused to the complainant.

iii) To Pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as counsel fee as well as the litigation charges.

The above amount shall be disbursed in all complainants in equal share and in case of minor their amount shall be deposited in a Nationalized Bank in the shape of FD and withdrawn by the minor on attaining the age of maturity.

7.                The OP shall make the compliance of the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP will pay further interest @12% p.a. for the defaulted period till its actual realization.  Non compliance of this order on the part of OP will lead to action in terms of Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.  Order be promptly uploaded on the website. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.