Counsel for the  Appellant: Mr.N.Mohan Krishna

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s Gogoneni Krupachand-R1

                                              R2-served.

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.

                                      AND

SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER.

                                                     WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN

Oral Order ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalakrishnaTamada, President.)

                                                                                                            ***

        This appeal is filed by opposite party No.1  against the orders dated 09-7-2014 in CC No.38/2013 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed by the District Forum and the opposite party No.1 was directed to pay Rs.88,240/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 15-3-2013 till realization together with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- and the complaint against opposite party No.2 was dismissed.

        The brief facts that led to the filing of the case are that the vehicle of the complainant bearing No.AP 26 AL 4884 was insured with opposite party No.1 for the period from 20-7-2012 to 19-7-2013 and in that regard a policy bearing No.0152021579 was issued after collecting a premium of Rs.10,243/-.  While so on 19-1-2013 the said vehicle met with an accident and the said fact was informed through SMS to opposite party No.1 and the same was registered as claim No.620589728.  Immediately a surveyor was appointed to inspect the vehicle.  Subsequently on 28-1-2013 the insurance company repudiated the claim stating that the complainant did not furnish the correct information as required under the terms and conditions i.e.  with regard to ‘No claim bonus’ and rejected the claim of the complaint.  Hence the complainant approached the District Forum for a direction to opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.88,240/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment together with costs.

        The said complaint was opposed by the insurance company stating that the said car was insured with a different insurance company for the previous insurance year commencing from 20-7-2012 to 19-7-2012, the said vehicle met with an accident and in those circumstances, a claim was made and the said claim was also settled by the said insurance company.  According to it for the present insurance year i.e. commencing from 20-7-2012  and ending on 19-7-2013, in the proposal form which was marked as Ex.B3, to a question “Was any claim reported during the expiring policy period, the answer given by the complainant was ‘no’ and as the said answer amounts to breach of contract, the claim was repudiated and a letter was addressed on 22-2-2013.

        Subsequently chief affidavits were filed by both the parties and during the course of hearing, Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

        Having considered the entire material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to the claim amount as claimed in the complaint and directed opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.88,240/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 15-3-2013 till realization together with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- and the complaint against opposite party No.2 was dismissed.

        The said order is questioned by the insurance company in this appeal.

        Ex.A1 is the policy bearing No.015021579 dated 21-7-2012.  In Ex.B3 i.e. proposal form at page 2 in column 12 previous insurance particulars, in that to one of the questions “was any claim reported during the expiring policy period”  and there are two columns and they are ‘yes’ or ‘no’.  The ‘No’ was ticked and from the said proposal form, it can safely be concluded that no claim was reported during the expiry of the policy period.  When it is the specific stand of the insurance company that the complainant has availed ‘No claim bonus’, for the insurance year 21-7-2011 to 20-7-2012, in our considered opinion, the District Forum has a duty to answer the said point.  From a perusal of the order impugned in this appeal, it is clear that the District Forum has not discussed anything with regard to the said aspect.  In the absence of any finding in that regard, we are of the view that the matter requires remand.  It is only after giving a finding as to whether the complainant is entitled to ‘No claim bonus” then only the District Forum  can go into the other aspects of the case.

        Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the order impugned in this appeal is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum only for the purpose of giving a finding as to whether there is any suppression of fact by the complainant with regard to the said ‘No claim bonus’.  There shall be no order as to costs  in this appeal.

                                                               sd/- PRESIDENT.

                                                                sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                             Dt.18-2-2015.