State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harvinder Singh vs M/S Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 17 April, 2026
CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026
HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 28.08.2014
Date of reserving the order: 05.12.2025
Date of Decision: 17.04.2026
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 408/2014
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. HARVINDER SINGH
S/O MR. TRILOCHAN SINGH
R/O B-33, NEW KRISHNA PARK,
NEW DELHI-110018
...Complainant
(Through: Mr. Vijay Kr. Malhotra &
Mr. Ramesh Sethi, Advocates
Mob.9810001977, 9811255508)
VERSUS
THE MANAGER CLAIMS-LEGAL
M/S HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED
UNIT: 502, 504, 506, 5TH FLOOR,
MAHATTA TOWER 54,
B-1 BLOCK COMMUNITY CENTRE,
JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI-110058
AND
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
1ST FLOOR, 165-166,
BACKBAY RECLAMATION SCHEME,
H.T.PAREKH MARG, CHURCHGATE,
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 17
CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026
HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.
MUMBAI-400020
...Opposite Parties
(Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Adv.
Mob.9810731674)
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
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 ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. 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 ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. 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.
ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026
HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.
9. The Complainant then approached the grievance cell of the Opposite Party and also sent to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) vide email dated 08.05.2014, but no action was taken.
10. The Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 05.05.2014, which was replied by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 22.05.2014, and thereafter duly responded to by the Complainant through counsel.
11. Despite continuous follow-ups and compliance with all requirements, the Opposite Party has failed to settle the genuine claim of the Complainant and has wrongfully withheld the insured amount.
12. It is a known fact that even high-end cars can be stolen using advanced methods such as key cloning and electronic systems, which has been widely reported.
13. The action of the Opposite Party in rejecting a genuine claim on weak and unjustified grounds amount to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
14. Having no other option, the Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and has prayed for the following relief:
ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026
HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.
a) that the respondents/OPs be directed to pay the claim as per the policy terms amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of the complainant
b) that respondents/OPs be directed to pay the interest @ 2% p.m. for the period the claim remain unsettled for no fault of the complainant.
c) that the respondents/OPs are jointly and severally liable and responsible for the harassment and torture caused to the complainant and as such be directed to reimburse the compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant.
d) that the legal expenses of Rs.45,000/- be also awarded in favour of the complainant.
e) any other order or relief this Hon'ble Forum deem fit and proper in the circumstances be also passed in favour of the complainant and against the respondents."
15. After receiving the complaint notice, both opposite party submitted their written statement.
16. In the written statement, the Opposite Party has denied the allegations made in the complaint and has contended that the present complaint is false, baseless, and devoid of any cause of action. It is submitted that the Complainant has misrepresented material facts and has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
17. While admitting that the vehicle in question was insured under the policy issued by the Opposite Party, it is contended that the alleged theft is doubtful. The Opposite Party has specifically denied that the vehicle was parked at the stated location. It is ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. submitted that the alleged place of theft was under CCTV surveillance, and the footage shows that the vehicle was not present at the said spot at the relevant time.
18. It is further contended that the insured vehicle, being a high-end Mercedes S-350L, was equipped with advanced anti-theft and immobilizer systems, which do not permit the vehicle to be started, unlocked, towed, or otherwise moved without the use of its original keys. It is submitted that duplication of keys is a controlled process requiring intervention of the manufacturer and specialized programming, thereby making unauthorized access highly improbable. The Opposite Party has also emphasized that the Complainant failed to comply with essential policy conditions. In particular, the Complainant did not provide the second key of the vehicle, which is a mandatory requirement to rule out misuse or involvement of duplicate keys. This omission, according to the Opposite Party, amounts to failure to take reasonable care of the insured vehicle and constitutes a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.
19. The Opposite Party has also submitted that although a surveyor/investigator was duly appointed upon intimation of the claim, the Complainant failed to cooperate in the investigation process. Despite repeated requests and reminder letters, the ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. Complainant did not furnish the required documents in a timely and complete manner, thereby hindering proper investigation of the claim.
20. The Opposite Party has submitted that the claim was repudiated only after due investigation and on the basis of material discrepancies, including the doubtful circumstances of the alleged theft, non-availability of the second key, and failure of the Complainant to comply with policy conditions and cooperate with the investigation. The repudiation, therefore, is stated to be lawful, justified, and in accordance with the terms of the insurance contract
21. It is further contended that the present dispute involves serious and complex question of fact including allegations suggestive of fraud which require detailed evidence and cannot be appropriately adjudicated in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. It is also pointed out that criminal proceedings relating to the alleged incident are pending, and therefore, the complaint is premature.
22. Relying upon settled legal principles, the Opposite Party has submitted that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are binding on the parties and must be strictly construed. Since the Complainant has failed to comply with the policy conditions ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. and has not established the occurrence of theft in a credible manner, no liability can be fastened upon the Opposite Party. Accordingly, the Opposite Party has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs, as no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against it.
23. The Complainant has filed rejoinder rebutted averments made in the written statement filed by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has also denied the allegations raised by the Opposite Party and reiterated the facts stated in the complaint.
24. The Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit in order to prove his averments on record.
25. The Opposite Party had also filed evidence by way of affidavit in order to prove its averments on record. An affidavit of Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Manager (Legal) of the Opposite Party was filed as evidence of the Opposite Party.
26. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the Complainant and the Opposite Party.
27. We have carefully perused the material available on record as well as written submissions filed by both the parties.
28. The first question for consideration before us is whether the repudiation of the insurance claim by the Opposite Party is justified in the facts and circumstances of the present ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. complaint, or whether such repudiation amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act?
29. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the Opposite Party under a valid insurance policy No.2311200368377200001 from 07.11.2012 to 06.11.2023 and that the policy was valid on the date of the alleged incident. It is also not disputed that the Complainant had intimated the police authorities as well as the Opposite Party regarding the theft and that the claim was registered and processed by a surveyor. Thus, the existence of a valid contract of insurance and the lodging of the claim are clearly established.
30. The contentions of the Opposite Party are that the alleged theft is doubtful on account of the vehicle not being visible in the CCTV footage at the stated location and also on the ground that the vehicle, being equipped with advanced security features, could not have been stolen without the use of original keys. It has also been contended that the Complainant failed to provide the second key and did not fully cooperate during the investigation.
31. This Commission has carefully examined the said contentions in light of the material available on record. The Complainant has placed on record the copy of FIR registered with the Police Station ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. Vikas Puri (Annexure-D of the complaint) immediately after the incident, which clearly records the theft of the vehicle. After investigation, the police authorities have filed an untraced report (Annexure-F of the complaint) which has also been placed on record. These documents are official records prepared by competent statutory authorities in discharge of statutory duties by public authorities and carry a presumption of correctness unless rebutted by cogent evidence. The Opposite Party has not produced any convincing material to discredit these documents.
32. The second ground taken by the Opposite Party that the vehicle could not have been stolen due to the presence of advanced security features, including an immobilizer system is not convincing. It is well known that even modern and luxury cars can be stolen using advanced methods such as electronic hacking, key cloning, or towing. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that such vehicles are completely theft-proof. In the absence of any clear evidence showing that the theft was impossible without original keys, this argument cannot be accepted. Mere assumptions are not enough to ignore an FIR and untraced report issued by the police.
33. As regards the alleged non-submission of the second key, it is observed that the Complainant has explained that the available ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. key was handed over to the police authorities during investigation and was subsequently retrieved through due legal process and submitted to the surveyor. The Opposite Party has failed to establish how the absence of the second key has affected the investigation or proves any wrong doing. In the absence of any evidence of misuse, fabrication, or involvement of the Complainant, the mere non-production of a second key cannot be made a ground to repudiate the entire claim.
34. It is evident from the record that the Complainant had fully cooperated during the claim process and provided all required documents and replies whenever asked. The surveyor, vide letter dated 10.10.2013 (Annexure-G of the complaint), sought a detailed list of documents, which was reiterated by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 16.10.2013 (Annexure-H of the complaint). In compliance, the Complainant duly furnished the said documents to the appointed surveyor vide letter dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure-I of the complaint).
35. Again, vide letter dated 04.01.2014 (Annexure-J of the complaint), the surveyor sought further documents, including a meeting with the previous owner and submission of the original key of the stolen vehicle. The same were duly provided to the surveyor, as confirmed vide letter dated 14.01.2014 (Annexure-K of the ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. complaint). Thereafter, the surveyor issued another letter dated 01.03.2014 (Annexure-L of the complaint) seeking additional documents, and the Opposite Party also issued letters dated 03.03.2014 (Annexure-M of the complaint) and 10.03.2014 (Annexure-N of the complaint). The Complainant duly complied with the said requirements and furnished the necessary documents vide letters dated 14.03.2014 (Annexure-O of the complaint) and 20.03.2014 (Annexure-P of the complaint). The Opposite Party kept asking for more documents again and again and unnecessarily delayed the process. The Opposite Party again issued a letter dated 04.04.2014 (Annexure-Q of the complaint), which was duly replied to by the Complainant vide letter dated 12.04.2014 (Annexure-R of the complaint). Despite the Complainant's compliance, the claim was ultimately rejected vide letter dated 14.04.2014 (Annexure-S of the complaint). This shows that the Opposite Party acted in an unfair and arbitrary manner and unnecessarily delayed the matter instead of properly examining the claim.
36. The contention of the Opposite Party that the Complainant did not cooperate with the investigation is not supported by the record. On the contrary, it is clear that the Complainant fully ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. cooperated by providing all required documents, participating in the investigation, and even complying with repeated requests.
37. The contention of the Opposite Party that the matter involves complicated questions of fact or allegations of fraud, which are not suitable for adjudication in summary proceedings, is also devoid of merit. Mere allegation of fraud, without any substantive evidence or material particulars, cannot oust the jurisdiction of this Commission. The Opposite Party has not placed any reliable evidence on record to prove any fraud or misrepresentation by the Complainant.
38. It is a well-settled principle of law that the terms of an insurance policy must be interpreted in a fair, reasonable, and practical manner, keeping in mind the purpose for which the policy has been taken. The primary objective of an insurance contract is to provide financial protection to the insured against unforeseen risks, and therefore, the interpretation of its terms should advance this purpose rather than defeat it.
39. No doubt, the insured is required to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy; however, such conditions cannot be applied in an overly technical, strict, or mechanical manner so as to unjustly reject a genuine claim. Minor procedural lapses or technical objections should not be used as a ground to deny the ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. rightful claim of the insured, especially when there is no evidence of fraud, negligence, or deliberate breach.
40. In cases where the occurrence of the insured event, such as theft, is duly supported by official records like an FIR and an untraced report issued by competent authorities, the claim ought to be considered on its merits. The insurer cannot avoid its liability by adopting a hyper-technical approach or by raising unreasonable objections that have no direct bearing on the genuineness of the claim.
41. In the present case, the repudiation of the claim appears to be based on conjectures, assumptions, and hyper-technical objections rather than on any cogent and reliable evidence. The Opposite Party has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the claim was fraudulent or that there was any willful breach of policy conditions by the Complainant.
42. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the repudiation of the claim by the Opposite Party is arbitrary, unjustified, and not sustainable in law. Such conduct clearly falls within the ambit of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
43. Therefore, the Opposite Party is responsible for compensating the Complainant for the loss caused by the theft of the insured ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. vehicle, along with reasonable compensation for the harassment and mental stress caused due to the unjustified rejection of the claim.
44. Keeping in view the facts of the present case, the present complaint is allowed and we direct the Opposite Party to pay to the complainant the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle i.e., Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e.14.04.2014 till realization; B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Party pays the entire amount on or before 16.06.2026; C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Party fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 16.06.2026, the entire amount is to be refunded along with an interest @ 9% p.a. calculated from the date of filing of the claim till the actual realization of the amount.
42. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of:
ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 17 CC/408/2014 DOD:17.04.2026
HARVINDER SINGH VS. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.
A. Rs.1,25,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the Complainant; and B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs.45,000/-.
43. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
44. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
45. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 17.04.2026 ALLOWED PAGE 17 OF 17