District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.388/2022.
Date of Institution:21.07.2022.
Date of Order: 16.02.2024.
Mrs. Poonam Dabral W/o Shri Indra Kumar Dabral R/o House No. L-301, BPTP Park Grandeura, Sector-82, Kheri Kalan (113), Faridabad, Haryana – 121002.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Branch office at Om Shubham Tower, Shop No. 35 & 36, Ist floor, Shahid Bhagat Sigh Marg, Neelam Bata Chowk, New Industrial Town, Faridabad, Haryana – 121001.
Regd. & Corporate office at: HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited at Ist floor, HDFC House, 165-166/166, Backbay Reclamation, H.T.Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020.
…Opposite party……
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. Kapil Tongar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. D.K.Gosain , counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner and in possession of vehicle Maruti Baleno Delta bearing its registration NO. HR-51BM-6596, Chassis No. MA3EWB22SHB, Engine No. 304545, Model 2017. The complainant obtained policy No. 2311204502482200000 on 4.2.2022, customer ID NO. 101063743097 which was effective from 13..2022 to 12.02.2023 against payment of premium of Rs.15,695/- whichwas duly received by the opposite party – insurance company and creating a contractual liability to make payment of loss would be arises in future. On 06.03.2022 the husband of the complainant was returning from Uttrakhand to Faridabad by driving the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant as and when he reached at Kotdwar, Uttrakhand suddenly the vehicle of the complainant shut down/engine not starting and the husband of the complainant contacted the customer care no response had received thereafter the husband of the complainant approached the authorized dealer of Maruti namely Shakumbari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., E-5, E-6, Ind. Area, Near Hanuman Mandir, Haridwar, Uttrakhand – 249201 to cure the defect of said vehicle and visited the said authorized dealer then they told that water entry into the engine, leading the engine failure while the said defect had been covered under the policy and thereafter on the next day the surveyor of the opposite party insurance company namely Mr. Neeraj Tanwar visited and after inspection he did not cure the defect of the vehicle of the complainant and thereafter Neeraj Tanwar and Nagesh misbehaved with the husband of the complainant. The husband of the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.44,159/- to cure the defect of insured vehicle of the complainant from his pocket while the opposite party insurance company was legally liable and responsible to cure the said defect under the insurance policy. The aforesaid damaged vehicle of the complainant was cured/repaired by the said Shakumbari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. And said Shakumbari Automobils Pvt. Ltd.had raised bill of Rs.42,059/- dated 17.05.2022 vide receipt No. RCP22000508 and Gulzar Crane Service had also raised bill of Rs.2100/- on dated 06.03.2022 vide receipt NO. 87 in the name of the opposite party and requested the opposite party – company to make the said amount and also handed over the original bill of the said vehicle issued by Shakumbari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. to the opposite party – insurance company for payment of the same The complainant requested the opposite party to make the said payment of Rs.44,159/- to Shakumbari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Gulzar Crane Service respectively as per its invoices/bills, then opposite party told the complainant that there had same issues to release/make the said payment/claim and now opposite party told the complainant that the complainant directed pay the said payment to Shakumbari Autombolies Pvt. Ltd. and Gulzar Crane Service and thereafter opposite party will pay the same to the complainant. On the assurance of opposite party, the complainant made the aforesaid payment of Rs.44,159/- to Shakumbari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Gulzar Crane Services at the time of taking the delivery. The complainant time and again requested opposite party through written applications and telephonically but opposite party avoided the requests of the complainant and did not make the claim amount to the complainant.The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) an award of Rs.44,159/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party towards the claim insured amo7unt of vehicle of the complainant.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had insured his car vehicle bearing No. HR51-BM-6596 with answering opposite party bearing policy No. 2311 2045 0248 2200 000 valid from 13.02.2022 to 12.02.2023, subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was alleged by the complainant through claim form that while in transit the vehicle made some noise and vehicle suddenly stopped. Further after the claim intimation the insured changed his version and stated that due to water logging the rain water affected the engine, which clearly establish that the later version was just an afterthought in order to take undue advantage which amounts to misrepresentation. After the claim was intimated to the answering opposite party, the answering opposite party appointed an IRDAI licensed surveyor, as mandated under the Insurance Act, 1938 in order to assess and verify the damaged. During the survey, following observations were made by the surveyor:
“that the suspension frame was minor scratched and there was no damage to engine parts like block, oil pan, oil filter by accidental external means”. It was further submitted that it was a well settled law that a surveyor’s report had significant evidentiary value unless it was proved otherwise. The complainant must supply legitimate reasons for departing from such report. It was further submitted that s per the terms and conditions of the policy, any loss arising due to any mechanical failure was not to be indemnified by the company The relevant condition was reproduced below for their reference:
“The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of,
- Consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failure or breakages”.
In view of the aforementioned submissions, claim of the complainant was repudiated and the same was communicated vide letter dated 25.03.2022. Opposite party 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 party–HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited. with the prayer to: a) an award of Rs.44,159/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party towards the claim insured amo7unt of vehicle of the complainant. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Poonam,, Ex.C-1 – RC,,Ex.C-2 – Private Car Comprehensive policy, Ex.C-3 – Job card retail, Ex.C-4 – bill dated 6.3.2022, Ex.C-6 – legal notice,, Ex.C-7 – postal receipt.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shweta Pokhriyal, Senior Manager – Legal Claims, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., 5th floor, Tower-1, Stellar IT Park, C-25, Sector-62, Noida , Ex.R2/A – affidavit of Neeraj Tanwar S/o Shri Dharampal Singh Tanwar – surveyor, Ex.C-1 – Private Car Comprehensive policy,, Ex.R-2 – claim form,, Ex.R-3 – email, Ex.R-4 - letter dated 25.03.2022, Ex.R5 – Motor Final Survey report,, Ex.R-6 – Motor Final Survey report.
6. After going through the evidence led by both the both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that as per Private Car Comprehensive Policy vide Ex.R-1, the opposite party has taken the extra premium for Add on Coverage Zero Depreciation (IRDAN125A0021V0120415) Engine and Gear Box Protection IRDAN125RP0001V02201415/A0064V01202122 from the complainant. In this case the defect was on the engine side. Hence, the repudiation is not justified. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay the billed amount of Rs.42,059/- vide Ex.C3 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. There are no order as to costs. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 16.02.2024. (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.
