Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3005
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Pinki, Judicial Member
Harvinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 408/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vijay Kr. Malhotra, Ramesh Sethi
For the Respondents: Anuj Chauhan, Saloni Dwary
An insurance company cannot repudiate a claim by adopting a hyper-technical approach or by raising unreasonable objections such as non-production of a second key, especially when the theft is supported by official police records like an FIR and an untraced report.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act - Deficiency in service - Repudiation of insurance claim for vehicle theft - Whether insurer can reject claim on grounds of non-production of second key and suspicious circumstances when FIR and untraced report are on record. (Paras 31, 32, 40)
(B) Insurance - Policy interpretation - Terms of policy must be interpreted in a fair and reasonable manner - Technical objections like minor procedural lapses cannot be used to defeat a genuine claim. (Paras 38, 39)
Facts of the case:
The complainant's Mercedes car was stolen, for which an FIR and an untraced report were filed. The insurance company repudiated the claim alleging the theft was doubtful, citing CCTV evidence (not produced) and the failure of the complainant to produce the second key of the vehicle.
Findings of Court:
The commission found that the insurance company failed to prove any fraudulent activity. Official police records carry a presumption of correctness. Relying on advanced security features to deny theft is mere conjecture in the absence of evidence. The complainant had cooperated throughout the investigation.
Issues: Whether the repudiation of the insurance claim was based on valid grounds or amounted to a deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: Insurance clauses cannot be applied with hyper-technicality to reject claims. In the presence of official police reports, the onus is on the insurer to prove fraud, which it failed to do. Unjustified rejection of a genuine claim constitutes a deficiency in service.
Result: Complaint allowed; Opposite party directed to pay the Insured Declared Value of Rs. 30,00,000/- with interest and compensation for harassment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint regarding deficiency in service for wrongful claim repudiation. (Para 1 , 14 , 22) |
| 2. insurer's defense regarding policy conditions and complex factual disputes. (Para 15 , 18 , 21) |
| 3. evidentiary value of police reports and prohibition of hyper-technical claim rejection. (Para 28 , 31 , 32 , 39 , 41) |
| 4. final directions for claim satisfaction and compensation ordering. (Para 44 , 45) |
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Ms. Saloni Dwary, counsel for Opposite Party.
PER : HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed against the M/s HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party”) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the Opposite Party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the Complainant regarding the theft of the vehicle of the Complainant.
2. It is the case of complainant that the Complainant is the registered owner of a Mercedes car bearing registration No.DL-3C Y-5752) which was purchased from the open market and duly transferred in his name with the concerned Motor Licensing Authority on 02.11.2012. The said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party vide policy bearing No.2311200368377200001 which was valid from 07.11.2012 to 06.11.2013. The Complainant had paid an annual premium of Rs.50,336/- and the insured declared value (IDV) of the insured vehicle was Rs.30,00,000/-.
3. The complainant has further submitted that on 13.06.2013 at about 2:30 PM, he parked the said vehicle at M-Block, opposite KG-II, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, after properly locking it, and went to his office at KG-III/6, Vikas Puri. The said parking location was routinely used by the Complainant during office hours. At about 7:30 PM, when he returned and found that the vehicle was missing. After making unsuccessful efforts to locate the vehicle, he lodged a complaint with Police Station Vikas Puri. During investigation, the vehicle could not be traced and FIR No. 204/13 was registered at Police Station Vikas Puri.
4. The complainant has further submitted that he informed the Opposite Party about the theft on 14.06.2013, whereupon the Opposite Party appointed M/s Suraksha Enterprises as surveyors. The surveyor asked for certain documents and information, which were duly provided by the Complainant. The claim was registered as Claim No. C230013027043 under the said policy and the matter was assigned to the aforesaid surveyor.
5. The complainant has further submitted that he also obtained a court-certified untraced report dated 23.09.2013 and submitted the same to the surveyor along with the copy issued by the ACP office, as required for processing the claim.
6. Thereafter, the surveyor and the Opposite Party asked additional documents and clarifications vide letters dated 10.10.2013 and 16.10.2013, which were duly complied with by the Complainant vide letter dated 26.11.2013.
7. The surveyor again raised further requirements vide letter dated 04.01.2014, including submission of the original car key and details of the previous owner. The Complainant complied with the said requirements, including obtaining the release of the original car keys through the Court and submitting the same vide letter dated 14.01.2014. Despite repeated compliance with all requirements, the Opposite Party continued to ask for more information from time to time, which was also duly provided by the Complainant.
8. Despite all compliance and repeated follow-ups, the opposite party repudiated the claim vide letter dated 14.04.2014 on the grounds that the theft did not take place as reported and that the car could not be stolen without original keys. The Complainant states that these reasons are incorrect and baseless, especially in view of the FIR and untraced report issued by the police. The rejection of the claim is arbitrary and not supported by any proper evidence.
9. The Complainant then approached the grievance cell of the Opposite Party and also sent to t
