CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/386/15

          Date of Institution:-    17.05.2015

          Order Reserved on:- 31.07.2024

                     Date of Decision:-      12.11.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Praveen Sharma,

1/143, Shree Ram Nagar,

G.T.Road, Shahdara,

Delhi - 110032

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited

FAI House, 2^nd Floor,

10, ShaheedJeet Singh Marg,

QutubInsitutional Area,

New Delhi - 110067

  .…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thathe is owner of vehicle bearing no.DL5CE1215. The vehicle was insured with OP vide policy number 79109350 valid from 07.02.2012-06.02.2013. During the night of 17.11.2012 the vehicle was stolen from the jurisdiction of PS, HazratNizamuddin New Delhi and FIR No.398/2012 PS,HazratNizamuddin, New Delhi was lodged. Bank of India, CGO Complex was also intimated about the theft. On 20.11.2012, the OP was informed telephonically about the theft of vehicle. The OP vide letter dated 28.11.2012 has appointed Sh. JeevanAgarwal, Investigator to assess the loss. He has handed over the documents to the representative of OP vide his letter dated 21.01.2013. The second key of the vehicle was not traceable at that time which was handed over later on vide letter dated 06.09.2013. On 05.09.2013, an email was received to provide consent for the claim for Rs.3,96,800/- but he insisted to settle the claim in full amount. He filed a complaint dated 19.09.2013 with IRDA. He has received a letter dated 23.10.2013 from OP that previous policy bearing no.2018845 issued by National Insurance Co. Ltd. was invalid and sought reasons from him why the claim should not be treated as no claim.He has written the letters to the OP to settle the claim and provide the insurance copy of National Ins. Co. to him but in vain. The OP has finally conveyed him vide letter dated 16.02.2015 that his claim has been rejected. He has also filed the complaint before insurance Ombudsman but no communication has been received till date. He has also approached grievance cell but without any result. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP has filed the reply with the averments that complaint is barred by limitation as loss to the vehicle took place on 17.11.2012 whereas complaint has been filed on 14.04.2015. This Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the case. The investigation report shows that previous policy submitted by the complainant for the renewal of policy allegedly issued by National Insurance Co. was found fake. Insurance is a contract based upon principal of utmost good faith. There is violation of condition no.8 of the terms and conditions of insurance policy so the claim was rightly rejected by the OP.
3. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments made in the written statements.

4. The partieswere directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.C-1 to C-18.

6. The OP has filed the affidavit of Sh. Raj Kumar Bora, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents namely RW1/1 i.e. insurance policy and RW1/2 i.e. repudiation letter.

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.

8. The complaint filed by the complainant is within time as claim was repudiated vide letter dated 23.10.2013. The cause of action arose on the rejection of claim by the OP. The complaint has been filed on 14.07.2015 so same is filed within two years from the date of cause of action. The complaint is within time.

9. The OP works for gain at Qutub Institutional Area which falls under the PS, VasantKunj. This Commission has territorial jurisdiction over the cases falling within the jurisdiction of PS, VasantKunj. In view of this fact, this Commission has jurisdiction to decide the case.

10. It is evident from the material on record that complainant was the owner of vehicle bearing no.DL5CE1215 which was duly insured with OP vide policy Ex.RW1/1. The said vehicle was stolen qua which FIR Ex.C-3 was lodged by the complainant. The telephonic information dated 20.11.2012 was given to the OP upon which Sh. JeevanAgarwal investigator appointed by the OP. The complainant has handed over the documents and keys to the OP. The OP after considering all the facts has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 16.12.2015 Ex.C-15/Ex.RW1/2 on the premise that insurance policy issued by National Insurance Company for 13.11.2010 – 12.11.2011 for the renewal of present policy Ex.RW1/1 on the basis of which NCB of 25% was given was found fake and accordingly claim was rejected by considering that there is violation of condition no.8 of the policy.

11. The question that needs consideration is whether OP has rightly rejected the claim or not.

12. In M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oreintal Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 1014, it was held by their lordship that utmost good faith is the fundamental principal of law and insured has a duty to disclose all material facts in his knowledge to the insurer.

13. The complainant has given policy no.2018845 allegedly issued by National Ins. Co. for the period 13.11.2010 – 12.11.2011 for the renewal of the policy as well as to claim no claim bonus. The OP on the basis of this policy i.e. AnnexureC-10 (collectively) has issued the present policy Ex.C-2. The complainant has claimed no claim bonusof 25% on the basis of earlier policy. The complainant was well aware of the fact that the policy issued by National Ins. Co. is not a genuine. He has given the said policy to the OP and claimed 25% no claim bonus from OP. The complainant has concealed the material facts from the OP and thereby paid the less premium on the insurance of the vehicle.The non-disclosure of non-material facts can lead to repudiation of the claim. In Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz LIC Ltd. and Ors. vsDalbirKaur (2021) 13 SCC 553, it was held by their lordship that insurance company can repudiate the claim on the ground of non-disclosure of true and material intimation. Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has also taken the said view in Rajeshwari Devi Garg vs. United India Ins. Co. and Ors. decided on 17.01.2024.

14. The OP has rightly rejected the claim as complainant has concealed the true and material facts from the OP. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP in rejecting the claim.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 12.11.2024.