Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/115/2015

Manager Branch Manager Unitede Ins. Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhanwaroo Khan s/o Saleem Khan - Opp.Party(s)

Rajkumar Jain

26 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 115 /2015

 

Manager, Br.office, United Insurance Co. Ltd. Fort Road Nagaur & ors.

Vs.

Bhanwaroo Khan r/o Near Maithee Godown, Ajmeri Gate Nagaur.

 

Date of Order 26.5.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

Mr. Liyakat Ali- Member

 

Mr. Rajkumar Jain counsel for the appellants

Mr. Bhanu Prakash counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of

2

 

learned DCF Nagaur dated 8.1.2015 by which it allowed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant had taken an insurance of his vehicle Indica car No. RJ 21 CA 0824 for the period 16.2.2010 to 15.2.2011. This vehicle met with an accident on 16.10.2010. The company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss but the claim was repudiated on the ground that the complainant had made false representation in respect of No Claim Bonus. Previously this vehicle was insured from Reliance General Insurance Company. After the accident the appellant company enquired from Reliance General Insurance Company and it was informed that there was a claim occuring under the policy no. 108000954018. On the basis of this the claim was repudiated. The learned DCF came to the conclusion that the appellant company has not been able to prove that there was any false representation as no information or affidavit from the Reliance General Insurance Company was filed.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to Ex. D 4 a letter addressed by the appellant company to Reliance General Insurance Company on 16.2.2011

3

 

requiring them to furnish the following information:

 

1. Type of cover granted to you

2. Date of expiry of the policy

3. Percentage of No Claim Bonus earned

4. Claim experience

5. Whether renewal was invited by you on normal terms

 

There is no reply on behalf of the Reliance General Insurance Company. On this letter itself it was mentioned that claim settled and No Claim Bonus 0% and stamp of Reliance General Insurance Company was affixed. The learned DCF has rejected this evidence. We too feel that this is not a satisfactory evidence on the basis of which it could be believed that the complainant had made any wrong declaration. The Reliance General Insurance Company did not forward to the appellant company any details of the claim as was mentioned in the letter. Other details were also not forwarded. So we do not disturb the findings arrived at by the learned DCF.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant company has cited Revision Petition No. 4470 of 2014 ( Shri Inder Pal Rana Vs. National Insurance Co. ) and Revision Petition No. 1255 of

4

 

2009 ( Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Vs. Gulzari Singh ). We are in agreement with the principles laid down in the above judgments but in the present case the appellant company has not been able to prove that there was any claim under the previous policy. The evidence adduced on this point is not sufficient. However, we find that the surveyor had assessed the losses at Rs. 49673.75 while the learned DCF has allowed Rs. 75,000/- as claim. We wish to modify the order of the learned DCF on this point. Normally the survey report should not be disbelieved unless valid objections are putforth against the report.

 

We wish to modify the order of the learned DCF and order that the amount assessed by the surveyor shall be paid to the complainant within one month.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm