Order-16.

Date-05/04/2016.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle being registration no.WB 66J 6485 having its Chassis No.3FSEBIS00327702 and Engine No.DI3A1528055 and the said vehicle was insured under the OP vide policy No.3362/01015297/000/00 on 08-06-2015 and it was valid up to 07-06-2016 and total coverage of the policy was Rs.3,50,000/- for that purpose OP insurance company received Rs.13,737/- as premium and as per agreement of insurance in between the parties parties are guided bythe terms and conditions of the policy.

          Fact remains on 01-07-2015 the car of the complainant met with an accident near Kolkata on the way from Maldah to Kolkata and soon after the accident the complainant placed the damaged and destroyed car to the Ultracraft, a Maruti Authorised service centre of OP1, near Pareshnath Mandir, Manicktala, Kolkata – 700 006.

          As per job order of the OP4 it was found that head light, bonnet, the bumper damage, window side glass,  near w/s glass, both earn height were broken and as per the norms the complainant informed those matters to his current insurer being OPs1 and 2.

          As per instruction of the OPs1 and 2 complainant submitted to the OP1 necessary documents that is claim form along with driving license, Tax token in original, Ignition Key in two numbers, certificate of insurance policy etc.

          The subject vehicle was previously insured by the OP3 for the period from 06-03-2014 to 05-03-2015 and on 31-07-2015 OP sent a letter to the complainant denying the claim of the complainant stating that previous insurance of the vehicle that is Iffco Tokio Insurance are a fake one and no coverage can be provided upon fake cover note at the time of renewal.

          The plea of the OPs 1 and 2 are illegal and are nothing but a tactics to deprive the bona fide claim of a consumer which is not permissible under agreement of insurance.

          In the above circumstances, for adopting such sort of deceitful manner of practice and trade complainant filed this complaint praying for directing the OPs 1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with interest and litigation cost etc.

          OPs 1 and 2 Cholamondalam MS Insurance Company Ltd. by filing written statement submitted that no supporting document in respect of in respect of facing an accident of alleged vehicle on 01-07-2015 but no supporting document has been submitted by the complainant.  But complainant shall have to take the same and in fact complainant did not produce all the substantial documents for processing the said claim.

          But OPs1 and 2 admitted that the policy being No.3662/01015297/000/00 in respect of said vehicle bearing registration no.WB 66 J 6485 with validity period from 08-06-2015 to 07-06-2016 was issued and at the time of entering the aforesaid insurance contract with the OPs 1 and 2 complainant submitted one proposal form and also one copy of policy of insurance claimed to have been issued by Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. showing the same to be valid from 08-06-2014 to 07-06-2015.  Accordingly, following the law of the land as well as relying upon the principle of uberimma fides the aforesaid policy of insurance was issued by the OP in respect of the said car but later on verification it was revealed that the policy of insurance submitted by the complainant at the time of inception of present contract of insurance issued by the Iffco Tokey General Insurance was for the period of 06-03-2014 to 05-03-2015 and to avoid break in inspection, insured submitted a policy with manipulating policy period i.e. valid from 08-06-2014 to 07-06-2015 to give an impression that there is a continuous renewal.  As such following law of the land the policy of insurance issued by the OPs 1and 2 became void ab initio and under a void policy of insurance there cannot be any liability of OPs to pay any claim in respect of any alleged accident to the damaged car of the complainant.  As such the complainant’s claim is repudiated and same are also intimated to the complainant on 31-07-2015.  Therefore, there is no negligence, deficiency or arbitrary act on the part of the OP and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

          On the other hand Iffco Tokeyo General Insurance Company Ltd. OP3 by filing written statement submitted that no doubt OP3 issued insurance policy in respect of disputed car being policy No.86969707 with validity period from 06-03-2014 to 05-03-2015.  However, complainant is not further renewed the same in their company and in fact, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between complainant and OP3 when the policy issued by the OP3 already expired on 05-03-2015 and on the date of accident the said vehicle was not insured under the OP3 as such they are not at all liable to pay any claim, cost etc.

Decision with Reasons

On an in depth study of the complaint and the written version and also considering the spot survey report at the time of filing application for registration of the vehicle by Chola Mondalam MS Insurance Co. Ltd. on 23-07-2015 complainant supplied some documents wherefrom it is found that complainant reported that present car was previously insured under Iffco Tokio and the period of insurance was from 08-06-2014 to 07-06-2015 but Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. submitted certified true copy of the previous policy of the complainant in respect of car and it is found that actual validity period of previous policy was from 06-03-2014 to 05-03-2015 but complainant somehow collected invariably some unauthorized copy and submitted it showing validity period from 08-06-2014 to 07-06-2015 but after inspection OPs 1 and 2 searched out that false declaration made by the complainant at the time of purchasing the present policy and considering that fact it is clear that the said vehicle was previously insured under Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company for the period from 06-03-2014 to 05-03-2015 but not from 08-06-2014 to 07-06-2015 so, no doubt at the time of purchasing the present policy complainant supplied some fake document only to show and to give an impression that the present policy is nothing but a renewal and continuation of the previous policy but peculiar factor is that complainant against question No.5 .I suggest you that at the time of taking policy from OPs 1 and 2 you have submitted fake policy claimed to have been issued by OP3. but against that question complainant practically has not denied that fact but only stated that at the time of purchasing the present policy previous policy photo copy was submitted along with original complaint so no question arise whether previous policy was false or not.  But anyhow, it is proved that complainant submitted the previous photo copy of the policy by adopting manipulation and no doubt he is the maker of that photo copy by taking chance from other source who are able to collect such papers through internet by manipulation when OP3 has specifically proved by producing certified copy of the previous policy that valid period of previous insurance was from 06-03-2014 to 05-03-2015 but not for the period from 08-06-2014 to 07-06-2015.

          Considering that fact it is clear on the date of purchase of the present policy pervious policy already expired on 05-03-2015 and from 05-03-2015 to 07-06-2015 there was no insurance of the said policy and no doubt to that effect complainant adopted an unfair practice.

          Rule of law is that if the previous policy expired and new policy is required to be taken by any vehicle owner in that case it must be submitted with all honesty to the insurance company to that effect by the customer like complainant but complainant did not adopt such honest path but adopted illegal method and truth is that the previous policy was not valid from 08-06-2014 to 07-06-2015 and it was valid from 06-03-2014 to 05-03-2015.  So, along with the proposal form the copy of policy as submitted by the complainant for purchasing the policy from OPs1 and 2 is a fake copy of insurance policy and truth is that on the date of purchasing the present policy there was no valid insurance of the vehicle and it is no doubt an unfair practice practiced by the complainant.

          In the present policy condition it is found that complainant by filing fake document of previous policy managed to get some benefits at the time of depositing the premium and in fact, the said policy is proved a fake policy and truth is that on the date of purchase of the present policy prior to that about 3 months their vehicle was not insured but even then filed such fake document and complainant got some benefits regarding amount of premium and generally such amount are deducted if previous policy is found valid and some bonus was given.

          Further in the conditions it is specifically mentioned no claim bonus will only be allowed provided the policy renewed with 90 days of the expiry date of the previous policy.

          Fact remains the present policy is shown as renewed, considering that fake document as genuine as placed by the complainant and such benefits were taken by the complainant.  So, it is clear that complainant by adopting unfair practice managed to purchase the present policy and got such all benefits on the basis of the fake copy of the previous insurance policy so such an act on the part of the insured is no doubt unfair trade practice and practicing fraud upon the OPs 1 and 2 complainant purchased the present policy being No.3362101015297/ 000/00.  So, apparently, the entire insurance policy can be treated as a void contract when complainant managed to get all sorts of benefits of bonus etc. and also by paying lower premium amount on the basis of that fake copy of old policy though complainant cannot get any benefit for such false declaration.

          In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that in fact, no deficiency, negligence or arbitrary act on the part of the OP1 and 2 is found but acted legally but all illegal acts were done by the complainant and by filing this case complainant further tried to grab some money.  It is proved that all sorts of illegal method or path and unfair practice was practiced by the complainant for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest with a penal cost against OPs 1,2 and 3 respectively and same is also dismissed ex parte against OPs 4,5 and 6 but without any cost.

          Complainant is hereby directed to deposit the penal cost of Rs.10,000/- to this Forum within one month from the date of this order failing which 9 percent p.a. interest shall be assessed over the same till realization of the same by the complainant.

          Complainant is directed to comply the order within stipulated time failing which penal action shall be started against him for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.