ORDER

PER SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

The complainant is the owner of a vehicle make BMW model X3 3.0. He had purchased a policy of insurance in respect of the aforesaid vehicle fromOP1 which was valid for the period 18.10.2013 to 17.10.2014. However, prior to the insurance of the vehicle OP 1 had got in inspected , through  its service provider M/s Ken Secure on 15.10.2013. There was a scar existing on the right side of the front wheel shield glass which fact was mentioned in the pre-inspection report of the service provider. It is alleged by the complainant that on 3.1.2014 the left side of the front wind shield of the car got damaged due to a flying stone.  The vehicle was taken to the authorized service center at Faridabad and the complainant registered a damaged claim with the OP under the policy of insurance purchased by him.    The OP had appointed M/s Atul Tyagi and Associates, surveyor to assess the loss but had rejected the claim vide letter dated 7.1.2014.   The complainant has alleged that the repudiation of the claim was uncalled-for and amounts to deficiency n service on the part of the OP.  Hence, the complaint.  

     The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. It has denied any deficiency in service on its part and has claimed that the complaint is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.  It has admitted that it had issued a policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question in favour of the complainant but has justified its action of repudiation of the claim.  Para 7 of the para-wise reply to the complaint of the written statement reads as under:-

7.That the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated as the windshield of the insured vehicle was already damaged at the time of inception of the policy and hence it was a pre-existing damage and not covered under the insurance policy. It was clearly specified in the repudiation letter dated 7.012014 that the damaged claimed by the complainant in the accident was unrelated to the date and cause of the accident reported in the claim form. The damage does not commensurate with the cause of loss and in fact is pre-existing damages. It was further mentioned that the damages to the front windshield glass as claimed by the complainant through the claim was also existing at the time of pre-inspection of the vehicle as conducted before the inception of the policy damages as claimed for the alleged accident were similar to earlier damages and the claim for the said pre-existing damages is tantamount to misrepresentation of facts. This misrepresentation of facts material to the claim goes against the declaration the reverse of the claim form. Hence, the claim of the complainant was closed as no claim. Copies of the Pre-inspection report and repudiation letter dated 7.01 .2014 are already enclosed with the complaint.

     We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

         The learned counsel for the OP has taken us through the undertaking and declaration of the owner / proposer   dated 15.10.2013 wherein it was specifically mentioned that repair / replacement of dented / crack heads and repair    of dented / scratched panels as per this inspection photographs shall be excluded in event of any claim lodged during the policy period .  The learned counsel has contended that there was a pre-existing damage on the vehicle in question  which is clear from the aforesaid report and it had been agreed vide the aforesaid undertaking and declaration that no claim would be paid in respect of the pre-existing damage.    We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the OP that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the OP was justified in repudiating the claim filed by the complainant .   At the time of pre-inspection  , it was noted that there was a scar on the front windshield and it had been specifically agreed to between the parties that no claim would be payable in respect of the said part under the said policy.  We, therefore, see no merits in this complaint. The same is hereby dismissed.

 Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. 

    File be consigned to record room.

     Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................