Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 24-11-2015 of the Ld. District Forum, Cooch Behar passed in C.C. No. 41/2015 whereof the complaint has been allowed.

Facts, as stated in the petition of complaint, briefly narrated, are that Complainant’s insured car sustained grave damage when the same suddenly caught fire.  Accordingly, necessary claim was lodged with the Insurance Company.  However, as the said claim was repudiated by the OPs, the complaint was filed.

Appearing to defend their case, it is stated by the OPs that Complainant resorted to falsehood in the matter of disclosing previous insurance policy.  While processing the claim of the Complainant, it transpired that the previous policy stood in the name of one Swapan Kumar Pal., although suppressing such fact, the Complainant claimed that it stood in his name. For suppression of such material fact, the instant claim was repudiated.

Decision with reasons

Both sides were represented by their Ld. Advocates, who submitted at length their respective versions in the matter.  We have also gone through the documents on record.

It is alleged by the Appellants that the previous insurance policy submitted to them by the Respondent was a fake/fabricated document and this was purposely done for making wrongful gain. 

Assuming that what the Appellants have alleged is indeed true, let us decided, whether this alone can be a cogent ground to repudiate a claim that is otherwise admissible. 

If we take into consideration the provisions of the Contract Act, more precisely, Sec. 19 of the said Act, it would appear that an insurance claim cannot be rejected on this score alone.  According to this Section, a contract would not be voidable if the consent was caused by misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent within the meaning of Sec. 17, if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence. If the Appellants so desired, they could verify authenticity of the previous policy document with ordinary diligence.  That they did not do so, the buck stops at their door.   While the same had no direct nexus to the cause of peril, it is not understood, why they decided to invent the past in the first place.

Fact of the matter remains that the nature of peril was very much covered under the insurance policy in question.  Therefore, Appellants ought to discharge their contractual obligation towards the Respondent.  That they did not do so, squarely points out their gross deficiency in service towards the Respondent.

Allowing the complaint in the above premises by the Ld. District Forum, thus, appear fully justified to us.  We see no cogent ground, therefore, to interfere with the same in any manner whatsoever save and except relieving the Appellants from the liability of paying punitive damage @ Rs. 100/- per day.

The Appeal, thus, allowed in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal is allowed in part on contest.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Appellants need not pay punitive damage @ Rs. 100/- per day.  Rest of the impugned order shall remain unaltered.