Date of Filing: 28/06/2011
Date of Order: 11/08/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1173 OF 2011
Sri. Shriharsha. Y.R,
S/o. Y.L. Rangaiah,
Aged About 44 years,
R/at: 472, II Block, Jnanabharati,
Nagadevanahalli Layout,
Bangalore-560 056.
(Rep. by Advocate Sanket.M.Yenagi) Complainant.
-V/s-
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company
Limited, No.3 & 4 Sudha Commercial Complex,
4th Block, Rajajinagar, Dr. Rajkumar Road,
Opp: Bharath Petrol Bunk,
Bangalore-10.
Rep. by the Branch Manager.
(Rep. by Advocate B.C. Shivanne Gowda) Opposite party.
BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.17,23,950/-, are necessary:-
The complainant has insured his Maruthi Swift car bearing registration No. KA-02-MB-9280 with the opposite party and the insurance was valid between 13.06.2010 to 12.06.2011. While the complainant was driving the said car on 07.11.2010 it met with an accident at 3.30 PM. The complainant sustained injuries and the vehicle sustained damages. A case was registered. The complainant was treated by the doctors. It was intimated to the opposite party. The opposite party on 25.01.2011 repudiated the claim stating that the complainant had obtained the policy giving false information and as per the proposal forum the complainant has claimed 35% of No Claim Bonus and declared that there was no claim regarding the previous policy with M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited. The representative of the opposite party at his own approached the complainant requested for an insurance policy, he himself has filled up the form and the complainant only signed the blank forms and to get more benefit its 30% of the claim by the agent and not by the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,81,899/- towards the accidental repair estimation, Rs.51,400.00 towards the vehicle parking charges till 24.06.2011 from the date of accident, Rs.2,000/- towards vehicle towing charges, Rs.3,000/- towards Ambulance Charges, Rs.2,99,289/- towards Driver medical expenses, Rs.2,700/- towards Medical Attendant’s charges, Rs.13,322/- towards Pharmaceutical charges, Rs.81,440/- towards EMIs till 24.06.2011 from the date of accident, Rs.64,500/- towards Auto rickshaw charges, Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony, in all Rs.17,23,950/-.
2. In brief the version of the opposite party are:-
The ownership of the vehicle its insurance with the opposite party are all admitted. The repudiation is admitted. Its accident and its damages are all admitted. At the time of obtaining the policy the complainant misrepresented by stating that he has not claimed any amount from M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited under the previous policy. Hence the opposite party has given no claim bonus in a sum of Rs.23,991/-, but as per the verification of the records from the previous insurance company, the complainant had claimed insurance and the said insurance company has paid the amount to the complainant. Hence it is misrepresentation of the fact and it is against the terms of the policy. As per the terms of the policy the complainant is not entitled to even the injuries sustained. Hence he has not submitted any claim regarding injuries. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases both the parties have filed their affidavits and documents. Arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party on the ground of false declaration with respect to no claim bonus and getting that concession from the opposite party is a deficiency in service?
- What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A) & (B):As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is an owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-02-MB-9280 which was insured with M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited earlier to 13.06.2010. The complainant made an application with the opposite party regarding the insurance of his vehicle for the period from 13.06.2010 to 12.06.2011 and paid the premium. In that form the complainant has claimed no claim bonus of 35% of amounting to Rs.2,399/- and the opposite party has given this concession and deduction and accordingly the policy was issued. It is also an admitted fact regarding the previous policy with M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited the complainant had obtained a claim, certain amount has been received from Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company with respect to the said vehicle for the period earlier to 13.06.2010 and thus he had given a false declaration and made a false claim.
7. It is also a disputed fact that the vehicle met with an accident on 07.11.2010 in that regard the complainant claimed certain amount from the opposite party and the opposite party repudiated. The sole contention of the complainant is that, the opposite party’s representative took the signatures of the complainant to the proposal forum and the entries are made by the representative of the opposite party in the proposal form. This is an untenable contention. When the complainant himself has subscribed his signatures to the proposal form it was written and the complainant obtained the policy accordingly he is bound by the terms and conditions of the proposal form and the policy. He cannot say it is only the agent of the opposite party who got these benefits; who ever might have got benefits to him; it is the complainant who obtained the benefit of the policy he is responsible for the proposal forum, he cannot disown it prima facie; if he has any claim he has to establish it before the Civil court by leading proper evidence its cross examination its scrutiny which cannot be done by this forum which has limited jurisdiction. If the complainant wants to deny his proposal form he has to approach the civil court and not this forum. According to the proposal form he had claimed no claim bonus with respect to the earlier policy and it was given benefit to him. Thus he has made a false claim is not entitled to claim anything under the policy. The opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim. There is no deficiency in service or illegality therein hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 11th Day of August 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
