BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.167/13.

Date of instt.: 12.08.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 24.07.2015.

Pardeep Kumar S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, R/o Village Guhna, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Eakansh Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its General Manager.

2. National Insurance Company, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Dalbir Chahal, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Deepak Seth, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

Sh. M.R.Miglani, Adv. for Op No.2.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a car Swift VDI bearing No.HR-08N-1986, Model-2011, engine No.1731113 from the Op No.1 in the month of November, 2011.  It is alleged that the above-said car of complainant was previously insured by Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No.88025072 dt. 27.11.2011 which was valid upto midnight of 26.11.2012.  It is further alleged that the employee of Op No.2 contacted the complainant through telephone several times to get insured the car of the complainant for the next year through the Op No.1.  It is further alleged that the Op No.1 delivered the policy of Op No.2 bearing No.35101031126132271342 dt. 26.11.2012 which was valid from 27.11.2012 to midnight of 26.11.2013.  It is further alleged that the car of complainant met with a road accident on 12.05.2013 and the complainant informed Op No.1 about the said accident.  It is further alleged that the complainant left the damaged car in the agency of Op No.1 and Op No.1 assured the complainant to deliver the damage car after getting its repair.  It is further alleged that the estimated cost which is to be incurred upon the repair of the car of the complainant is Rs.1,24,758.48 paise.  It is further alleged that the Op No.1 did not get repair the damaged car of the complainant and flatly refused to get repair the above-said car in his showroom and the complainant took his damaged car in the private workshop for repair.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant purchased the car in question from the answering Op and further got the car in question insured from Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No.88025072 dt. 27.11.2011 which was valid upto midnight of 26.11.2012; that after the expiry of above-said policy, the complainant again re-insured his car from Op No.2 through policy bearing No.35101031126132271342 dt. 26.11.2012 which is valid from 27.11.2012 to midnight of 26.11.2013; that unfortunately the car in question met with a road accident on 12.05.2013 and after receiving the intimation/information regarding the said accident from the answering Op, the Op No.2 duly verified the status of complainant in respect to the status of No Claim Bonus from the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. through letter dt. 04.06.2013.  In reply to the letter dt. 04.06.2013, it was duly intimated by the officials of Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. that the complainant has already availed the claim in respect of the policy, which was issued by the Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.     Op No.2 filed written statement on the same line as followed by Op No.1 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.              

4.     In support of their case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C4 and closed evidence on 11.06.2014.  On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed evidence on 28.10.2014 and the Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R1 to R3 and closed evidence on 12.05.2015.     

5.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased a car Swift VDI bearing No.HR-08N-1986, Model-2011, engine No.1731113 from the Op No.1 in the month of November, 2011.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that earlier the complainant insured the said car with Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No.88025072 on 27.11.2011 valid upto midnight of 26.11.2012.  Thereafter, the complainant got insured the said car with Op No.2 through Op No.1 vide policy No. 35101031126132271342 dt. 26.11.2012 which was valid from 27.11.2012 to midnight of 26.11.2013.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the car of complainant met with a road accident on 12.05.2013.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that after receiving the intimation/information regarding the said accident from the Op No.1, the Op No.2 duly verified the status of complainant in respect to the status of No Claim Bonus from the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

through letter dt. 04.06.2013.  In reply to the letter dt. 04.06.2013,

it was duly intimated by the officials of Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. that the complainant has already availed the claim in respect of the policy, which was issued by the Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.  In this regard, reliance can be made upon the authority reported as Inder Pal Rana Vs. NIC, 2015(2) CLT page 107 decided by Hon’ble National Commission, wherein it has been held that Insurance (vehicle)-No claim bonus-Complainant made false declaration that he has not taken any claim from previous insurer to get benefit of NCB-Plea of complainant that it is the duty to insurer to verify the declaration and claim cannot be repudiated on this ground-Held-Even if there has been failure on the part of the officers of the Insurance Company in verifying the declaration made by the petitioner, while taking the policy, what cannot be a good ground for reimbursing him on the basis of a policy, which he obtained by misrepresentation to the insurance company.  In para No.8 of said judgment, it has been held as under:-

        8.     Even if there has been failure on the part of the officers of the Insurance Company in verifying the declaration made by the petitioner, while taking the policy, what cannot be a good ground for reimbursing him on the basis of a policy, which he obtained by misrepresentation to the Insurance Company.  If we allow such a claim only on the ground that the officials of the Insurance Company should have verified the declaration made by the petitioner, and they having not done so, the insured cannot be denied his claim, that may result in a situation where pursuant to a connivance between the insurer and the officials of the Insurance Company the insured makes a misrepresentation and the officials in connivance with him does not verify the said representation.  In such a case, the Insurance Company would be saddled with liability on the basis of a contract which has been entered on the basis of misrepresentation.  We, therefore, reject the contention advanced by the learned for the petitioner.

In the case in hand, it is clear from the document Ex.C2 that that the complainant has taken the benefit of no claim bonus.  It is clear from the document Ex.R2 that the complainant has obtained the claim wherein it is specifically mentioned that no NCB last year claim paid amount-11978.00.  From these documents, it is clear that the complainant has obtained the policy by mis-representation.  Therefore, the said authority is fully applicable to the present case.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops. 

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.24.07.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.167/13.

Date of instt.: 12.08.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 24.07.2015.

Pardeep Kumar S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, R/o Village Guhna, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Eakansh Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its General Manager.

2. National Insurance Company, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Dalbir Chahal, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Deepak Seth, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

Sh. M.R.Miglani, Adv. for Op No.2.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a car Swift VDI bearing No.HR-08N-1986, Model-2011, engine No.1731113 from the Op No.1 in the month of November, 2011.  It is alleged that the above-said car of complainant was previously insured by Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No.88025072 dt. 27.11.2011 which was valid upto midnight of 26.11.2012.  It is further alleged that the employee of Op No.2 contacted the complainant through telephone several times to get insured the car of the complainant for the next year through the Op No.1.  It is further alleged that the Op No.1 delivered the policy of Op No.2 bearing No.35101031126132271342 dt. 26.11.2012 which was valid from 27.11.2012 to midnight of 26.11.2013.  It is further alleged that the car of complainant met with a road accident on 12.05.2013 and the complainant informed Op No.1 about the said accident.  It is further alleged that the complainant left the damaged car in the agency of Op No.1 and Op No.1 assured the complainant to deliver the damage car after getting its repair.  It is further alleged that the estimated cost which is to be incurred upon the repair of the car of the complainant is Rs.1,24,758.48 paise.  It is further alleged that the Op No.1 did not get repair the damaged car of the complainant and flatly refused to get repair the above-said car in his showroom and the complainant took his damaged car in the private workshop for repair.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant purchased the car in question from the answering Op and further got the car in question insured from Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No.88025072 dt. 27.11.2011 which was valid upto midnight of 26.11.2012; that after the expiry of above-said policy, the complainant again re-insured his car from Op No.2 through policy bearing No.35101031126132271342 dt. 26.11.2012 which is valid from 27.11.2012 to midnight of 26.11.2013; that unfortunately the car in question met with a road accident on 12.05.2013 and after receiving the intimation/information regarding the said accident from the answering Op, the Op No.2 duly verified the status of complainant in respect to the status of No Claim Bonus from the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. through letter dt. 04.06.2013.  In reply to the letter dt. 04.06.2013, it was duly intimated by the officials of Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. that the complainant has already availed the claim in respect of the policy, which was issued by the Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.     Op No.2 filed written statement on the same line as followed by Op No.1 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.              

4.     In support of their case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C4 and closed evidence on 11.06.2014.  On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed evidence on 28.10.2014 and the Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R1 to R3 and closed evidence on 12.05.2015.     

5.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased a car Swift VDI bearing No.HR-08N-1986, Model-2011, engine No.1731113 from the Op No.1 in the month of November, 2011.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that earlier the complainant insured the said car with Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No.88025072 on 27.11.2011 valid upto midnight of 26.11.2012.  Thereafter, the complainant got insured the said car with Op No.2 through Op No.1 vide policy No. 35101031126132271342 dt. 26.11.2012 which was valid from 27.11.2012 to midnight of 26.11.2013.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the car of complainant met with a road accident on 12.05.2013.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that after receiving the intimation/information regarding the said accident from the Op No.1, the Op No.2 duly verified the status of complainant in respect to the status of No Claim Bonus from the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

through letter dt. 04.06.2013.  In reply to the letter dt. 04.06.2013,

it was duly intimated by the officials of Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. that the complainant has already availed the claim in respect of the policy, which was issued by the Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.  In this regard, reliance can be made upon the authority reported as Inder Pal Rana Vs. NIC, 2015(2) CLT page 107 decided by Hon’ble National Commission, wherein it has been held that Insurance (vehicle)-No claim bonus-Complainant made false declaration that he has not taken any claim from previous insurer to get benefit of NCB-Plea of complainant that it is the duty to insurer to verify the declaration and claim cannot be repudiated on this ground-Held-Even if there has been failure on the part of the officers of the Insurance Company in verifying the declaration made by the petitioner, while taking the policy, what cannot be a good ground for reimbursing him on the basis of a policy, which he obtained by misrepresentation to the insurance company.  In para No.8 of said judgment, it has been held as under:-

        8.     Even if there has been failure on the part of the officers of the Insurance Company in verifying the declaration made by the petitioner, while taking the policy, what cannot be a good ground for reimbursing him on the basis of a policy, which he obtained by misrepresentation to the Insurance Company.  If we allow such a claim only on the ground that the officials of the Insurance Company should have verified the declaration made by the petitioner, and they having not done so, the insured cannot be denied his claim, that may result in a situation where pursuant to a connivance between the insurer and the officials of the Insurance Company the insured makes a misrepresentation and the officials in connivance with him does not verify the said representation.  In such a case, the Insurance Company would be saddled with liability on the basis of a contract which has been entered on the basis of misrepresentation.  We, therefore, reject the contention advanced by the learned for the petitioner.

In the case in hand, it is clear from the document Ex.C2 that that the complainant has taken the benefit of no claim bonus.  It is clear from the document Ex.R2 that the complainant has obtained the claim wherein it is specifically mentioned that no NCB last year claim paid amount-11978.00.  From these documents, it is clear that the complainant has obtained the policy by mis-representation.  Therefore, the said authority is fully applicable to the present case.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops. 

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.24.07.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.