STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Admission : 14.07.2021 Date of Final Hearing : 09.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 SC/5/A/83/2021 HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office: Stellar I.T. Park Sec-62, Noida, U.P.

Through Manager level (Through: Sh. Rahul Gupta, Advocate)

…..Appellant VERSUS Smt. Reshmi Devi W/o Late Sh. Rajendra R/o 63, Ator Nagla, Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad (U.P.)

(Through: Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Advocate)

…..Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against judgment and order dated 24.02.2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rudraprayag in consumer complaint No. 04 of 2019 styled as Smt. Reshmi Devi vs. Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 7,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of consumer complaint till its payment to the complainant within a month from the date of this judgment and order or to deposit with the District Commission.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant’s son (Shivam alias Shubham) was the registered owner of the Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. UP14-BZ-2869. The vehicle had earlier been insured by the opposite party – Insurance Company by its previous owner Sh. Gajendra for a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- under policy No. 2311201796438200000 valid from 02.06.2017 to 01.06.2018. The complainant’s son purchased the said vehicle on dated 30.10.2017 and got it transferred in his own name. On dated 12.01.2018, while travelling from Rishikesh to Mahal Malla Kaandai , the vehicle was struck by a falling rock resulting in Sh. Shivam’s death, injuries to the driver and total damage to the vehicle. The accident was reported to the insurer, whose surveyor confirmed the total loss and sought documents and assured settlement of claim. However, despite repeated reminders, the Insurance Company failed to release the insured / claim amount, compelling the complainant to file the present complaint.

3. The opposite party – Insurance Company in its reply contended that the insured claim was lodged after a delay of 220 days. It was also alleged that the insurance policy had not been transferred in the name of complainant’s son at the time of accident and further that the driver did not possess a valid driving license. However, the answering opposite party admitted that the insurance was valid on the date of incident and submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any relief and, therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

4. The District Commission, after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 24.02.2021 wherein and whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint in the above terms.

5. Having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, the opposite party has preferred an appeal as appellant and stated that the impugned judgment and order dated 24.02.2021 is based on surmises and conjectures, hence perverse. The District Commission has completely ignored the condition of the insurance policy, which makes it mandatory for insured to intimate the loss immediately. That the respondent - complainant intimated the appellant after a delay of 220 days, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the policy which have been duly assessed and approved by the IRDAI. The Commission below did not dispose off the important points of determination raised by the appellant in its pleadings supported by documentary evidence on privity of contract between complainant and insurer, which is prerequisite for establishing relationship of consumer and