Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/678/2015

NaresH Kumar s/o Late Sh. Chiman Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Natiosnal Ins. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Chouhan

15 Mar 2016

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 678 /2015

 

Naresh Kumar r/o Near Chotia Dharamshala, Ward No. 38, Pratibha Nagar, Churu.

Vs.

Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Near Alok Cinema, Churu.

 

Date of Order 15.3.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Varun Chauhan counsel for the appellant

Mr.Vivek Dangi counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

2

 

learned DCF, Churu dated 11.5.2015 whereby the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that his claim has been repudiated only on the basis of the fact that he had not disclosed the fact that he has taken the claim on previous policy and wrong facts have been mentioned in the proposal form. The contention of the appellant is that proposal form was filled in October 2012 and on that day he has not taken any claim on previous policy. Thereafter his claim has been allowed and money has been paid on 27.5.2013. Hence, on the day of execution of proposal form he has not suppressed any information and claim should have been allowed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that the appellant is guilty of suppressing the facts and he was not entitled for 'No Claim Bonus' as he had applied for the claim and basic intention between the parties was to supply such material which are relevant for issuance of the policy. It is a contract of trust between the two and “entitle” does not means receipt of actual payment. When the appellant has applied for the claim he was not entitled for 'No Claim Bonus' and claim has rightly been dismissed.

3

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

 

Facts are not in dispute that in proposal form it has been stated by the appellant that he is entitled to 'No Claim Bonus' . This fact is also not in dispute that on the day of execution of the proposal form, no claim was yet allowed to the appellant. Hence, appellant was right in saying that he is entitled for 'No Claim Bonus'. Thereafter if any claim has been allowed by the respondent, it was in the knowledge of the respondent. The respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1255/2009 ( TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Vs. Gulzari Singh ) decided on 26.2.2010 but in that case the facts were different. There was a specific question put to the insurer that whether any claims are lodged during the preceeding years. Here in the present case no such question was put to the insured and he was right in treating himself for entitlement of “No Claim Bonus” as till date of the execution of the proposal form, no claim was allowed to him. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision

 

 

4

 

Petition No. 4470/2014 (Inder Pal Rana Vs. National Insurance Co. ) decided on 2.1.2015 where the stress of the court was on word “ taken”. The facts of the case goes to show that the petitioner has taken claim of the vehicle and inspite of this he has misrepresented but here in the present case facts are quite different. The appellant has not taken any claim on the policy till the filling of the proposal form. Hence, he has not misrepresented any way while answering the question no. 18 of the proposal form Ex. 2.

 

Further the contention of the respondent is that if there is any addition or alteration, it should have been intimated to the insured and it was the duty of the insurer. Be that may be the case the claim on previous policy was paid on 27.5.2013 and it was within the knowledge of the respondent himself. Hence, it cannot be said to be the duty of the insurer to bring this fact into the knowledge of the insurer as it was already within their knowledge and further more the claim has not been repudiated on the ground that alterations have not been intimated to the insured. In view of the above the appeal is liable to be allowed and hence allowed.

 

The appellant has contended that he has to pay

5

 

Rs.2,48,445/- for the repair of the vehicle and no rebuttal of the same has been submitted. Even the surveyor report has not been submitted by the respondent. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the appellant that he had spent Rs.2,48,445/- for repair of the vehicle. Further claim has been lodged for rent of the truck and crane but for the same no receipts have been exhibited and even affidavit of the person concerned have not been furnished. Hence, this claim is not liable to be allowed.

 

The claim of the appellant is allowed for Rs.2,48,445/- with 8% interest from the date of presentation of the complaint dated 14.11.2013. Further the appellant is allowed Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as cost of proceedings. The claim should be honoured within one month.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm