BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Satwinder Kaur w/o Sh. OnKar Singh, #203, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar, Punjab.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

[1] M/s Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., 1^st Floor, Ferns Ikon, Survery No. 28, Next to Akme Ballet, Doddanakundi of Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, through its Manager.

[2] M/s Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No. 350-352, 1^st Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                    PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Yogesh K. Saini, Counsel for Complainant.

           Sh. Tajender K. Joshi, Counsel for OPs.

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

         Stated briefly, the facts of the case are that the Complainant got her Mitsubishi Lancer car comprehensively insured with the OPs, vide cover note Annexure C-1, valid from 7.9.2010 till 6.9.2011. On 30.10.2010, while the said vehicle was being parked outside the Gurudwara, Sector 8, Chandigarh, it was hit from rear side. On the instructions of the OPs, the car was got repaired from M/s Kosmo Motors by paying a sum of Rs.91,091/- qua bill no. 994, dated 30.11.2010. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged a claim, accompanied with all the documents, with the OPs, but to her utter dismay, the OPs vide letter dated 9.12.2010, repudiated the lawful claim of the Complainant on the ground that the complainant had made a misrepresentation at the time of taking the policy from the OPs with regard to no claim bonus of 20%. A legal notice dated 27.01.2011 was served upon the OPs, but the same failed to evoke any positive results. Hence, this complaint. 

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]      The OPs in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the claim of the Complainant was duly processed and during document verification, it has been noticed that while seeking insurance of the vehicle, the complainant had declared that she had not made any claim in the previous policy; whereas, on verification, M/s Future Generalli Insurance - the previous insurer of the Complainant informed that there was one claim in the earlier policy by the Complainant. Since the Complainant had concealed the said material fact, so, the contract of insurance became void, as such, the replying OPs have no liability under the insurance policy issued to the Complainant. The intimation regarding the same was sent to the Complainant through letter dated 09.12.2010 (C-4). All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]       The only point which calls decision from this Court is whether the repudiation of the claim is legal. The answer to this is negative.

7]       The perusal of repudiation letter dated 09.12.2010 Annexure C-4 makes it clear that the OPs had repudiated the claim on the ground that while seeking insurance for the subject risk, the complainant had declared that he had not made any claim in the previous policy and he is eligible for NCB upon expiry of the previous policy but his previous insurers have informed in writing that there was one claim lodged, thus as per the provisions of Motor Insurance provided by the Insurance regulator, he was not eligible for any NCB in the policy this year, we, therefore, regret our inability to admit the claim.

8]       There is no dispute that the car in question was insured with the OPs on the day of alleged accident.

9]      The objection raised by the OP-Insurance Company that the complainant-consumer was guilty of concealment of facts qua "no claim bonus" does not stand to reason, the reason being that it was the duty fastened upon the OPs to verify about the entitlement of No Claim Bonus (N.C.B.) to the complainant at the time of issuance of policy. Moreso, the policy continued running from 07.09.2010 to 30.10.2010 i.e. the date of the accident and during this period OPs did not demand the difference of NCB from the complainant. Reliance placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as TATA AIR General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gulzari Singh reported in II(2010) CPJ -272 (NC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Prem Singh reported in IV(2008) CPJ-355, Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in First Appeal No.1507 of 2000 decided on 10.07.06 titled as National Insurance Co. Vs. Avtar Singh and F.A. No.1002 of 2006 decided on 26.09.2006 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another versus Piara Singh.

10]      Admittedly, the surveyor has assessed the loss to the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.68,219/- (Ann. R-2) whereas the complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to make payment of 91,091/-  towards the expenditure incurred on repair of the car.  It is settled proposition of law that the surveyor’s report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside without any cogent evidence to the contrary. So mere placing on record the bills for Rs.91,091/- by the complainant is not sufficient to ignore the report of the surveyor without placing on record the receipts or the affidavits of the persons to whom the payment has been made.  Therefore, the report of the surveyor is to be accepted as the surveyor is an expert and also an independent person to assess the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant. Thus, we are of the opinion that the claim of the complainant can be allowed on the basis of the surveyor report. Reliance placed on Pradeep Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Company reported in III (2008) CPJ 158 (NC).

11]      As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is partly accepted and OPs are directed to pay Rs.68,219/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 10.5.2011 till realization along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment and costs of litigation, within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy.

12]      The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.