Date of filing:5.8.2015 Date of disposal:03.05.2017
Complainant: Mr. Basudeb ghosh, S/o. Late Gopal Ghosh, resident of Kalna, Jogipara, P.O. &
P.S.-Kalna, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713409.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., having its registered office at
IFFCO Sadan, I1, Dist.-Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, represented by its
Chairman.
2. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., having its office at 9/1,
Metro Tower, Ho-chi-Minh Sarani, Kolkata-71, represented by its
Manager.
3. IFFCO –Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., having its Branch office at
The City, residence office tower, 3rd floor, Sahid Khudiram Sarani,
Durgapur, Dist.-Burdwan, W.B., Pin-713216, represented by its Branch
Manager.
Present : Hon’ble Member : Smt. Silpi Majumder
Hon’ble Member : Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Debdus Rudra.
Appeared for the Opposite Parties: Ld. Advocate, Sourav Kr. Mitra.
JUDGEMENT
The complainant is a registered owner of a Tata LPT 2515 vehicle being registered No.WB 41B 7901. The said vehicle was covered under the endorsement commercial vehicle policy issued by the O.P.3 being policy No.85258381. Said policy was issued by the O.P. on 30.9.2013 and the period of the said policy was effected from 1.10.2013 to mid night 30.9.2014. On 14.7.2017 the complainant was running the vehicle with loaded towards Siligury on NH-31. At the time of dawn due to said vehicle was dashed on the road side at Madaripur under the police station of Islampur, near Ramganj Phari and the vehicle was damaged. Then the complainant without delay informed the local police station about the said accident. The police came to the spot and under the permission of the police the loaded materials were transferred to another vehicle and sent to the destination for delivery of the loaded materials. The police kept the said accidental vehicle into their custody. Thereafter the complainant wrote a letter to the Officer- in-charge of Ramganj outpost, Islampur Police Station, Islampur on 15.7.2014 stating that he was the owner of the said vehicle and requested to deliver the said accidental vehicle to the complainant. The complainant has also stated that though the vehicle was damaged but no one was injured and he has no allegation against any one. The concerned respected ASI, Rajkumar Das received the said letter on 15.7.2014 and treated this as a General Diary being G.D.E. No.148/2014. The complainant took the damaged vehicle to M/s. Progati Febric and Sandha Supplier, a general contractor and general order supplier for repairing. The proprietor namely Tapan Majumder of M/s. Progoti Febric & Sandha Supplier inspected the said damaged vehicle and gave an estimate towards the repairing cost of the damaged vehicle on 28.8.2014 amounting to Rs.1,63,300/-. During the inspection of the said damaged vehicle by the Proprietor, Tapan Mazumder, the surveyor who was appointed by the O.P. was present and took some photographs of the damaged vehicle and the estimate bill was prepared in presence of the said surveyor. After receiving the estimate amounting to the Rs.1,63,300/- the complainant lodged claimed before the O.Ps for the settlement of the said amount towards the repairing cost of the said vehicle. Very surprisingly the O.P. No.2 repudiated the claim lodged bythe complainant on 16.9.2014 thereby stating that on the basis of the documents submitted by the complainant, it was observed that currently the complainant has been enjoying a no claim bonus of 25% for the policy under reference, which was granted to the complainant on his confirmation that there was no claim in the respective previous policies. Moreover, the O.P. No.2 also stated that on verification it has been revealed that the complainant has been indemnified for a claim against date of loss on 7.2.2013, amounting to Rs.16,900/- under the policy period with M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. This appears to be a misrepresentation of material fact which attracts penalty by way of forfeiture of all the benefits U/s.1 of the captioned policy held by the complainant and under this circumstances the O.P’s were not in a position to honour the claim of the complainant and having no option left, the O.P’s filing away the documents with them as no claim. The complainant alleged that the grounds of repudiation of the claim taken by the O.P’s are illegal, arbitrary and beyond the provisions of law which is clearly indicates deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P’s. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the repudiation letter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 22.9.2014 through his Ld. Advocate to the O.P. No.2 requesting to pay the full compensation amount to the complainant towards the repairing cost of the said damage vehicle which was estimated by M/s. Progoty Febric & Sandha Supplier. But the O.P’s neither reconsidered the claim of the complainant nor settled the said claim which also amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the O.P’s.
The complainant served the notices upon the O.Ps. and the O.Ps. have jointly contested this case by filing joint written version.
The O.P. begs to submit that on submission of claim form and all documents this O.P. started for processing the claim. During processing of claim as from the policy it appears that in the proposal form the complainant gave a declaration that he has not lodged any previous claim as per IMT General Regulation 27, 25% No Claim Bonus was given to the complainant at the time if calculating the premium. As such this O.P. enquired about the previous claim of the complainant then it was detected that a claim was lodged by the complainant in respect of the said vehicle in the pendency of previous policy so issued by the Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. for a loss arising on 7.2.2013 amounting to Rs.16,900/-. This O.P. further beg to submits that the complainant knowing fully well that he got an indemnification under the previous policy at the time of filing proposal form he voluntarily and fraudulently suppressed the actual state of affairs regarding no claim bonus, so he is not entitled to get any benefit out of the policy in question. ON disclosure of the suppression of material fact at the time of inception of the policy by the complainant the claim was repudiated and such repudiation was communicated to the insured vide letter dated 16.9.2014. So, there is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice by this O.P.
The O.P. further submits that after getting intimation of the claim a sport surveyor namely Mrinmoy Kanti Kundu was appointed. He visited the spot on 15.7.2014 and submitted his report on 10.8.2014. Subsequently final surveyor Rajarshi Guha by assessing the claim at Rs.34,200/- has submitted his report. The complainant knowing fully well that he is not entitled to get any benefit under natural justice has filed the instant case only to harass this O.P. The present complaint should be dismissed with a cost in favour of this O.P. by treating the complaint as a vexatious complaint.
DECISION WITH REASON
Heard the argument at length. Perused all the documents submitted by the complainant and the O.Ps. as evidence on affidavit. The complainant claimed amount of Rs.1,63,000/- towards the repairing cost of the damage vehicle from the O.P. The O.Ps. repudiated the claim on the basis that the complainant did not disclose that the complainant has been indemnified against date of loss on 7.2.2013 amounting to Rs.16,900/- under the policy period with M/s.Shriram General Insurance Company. The O.Ps. think that this non-disclosure or suppression/mis-representation of material fact which attracts penalty by way of forfeiture of all the benefits U/s. 1 of the captioned policy held by the complainant and under the circumstances the O.P.s were not bound to honour the claim of the complainant and having no option left the O.Ps. have repudiated the claim of the complainant. Perused the terms and conditions of the said policy of insurance bearing No.85258381. It appears that in the proposal form the complainant gave a declaration that he has not lodged any previous claim as per IMT General Regulation-27, 25% No Claim Bonus was given to the complainant at the time of calculating the premium. As such the O.Ps. enquired about the previous claim of the complainant and it was detected that the claim was lodged by the complainant in respect of the said vehicle in the pendency of previous policy so issued by the M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. for a loss arising on 7.2.2013 amounting to Rs.16,900/-. In the argument the O.Ps. reiterated that the complainant knowing fully well that he got indemnification under the previous policy at the time of filing proposal form. The complainant voluntarily and fraudulently suppressed the actual state of affairs regarding no claim bonus. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit out of the policy in question. Hence, the complainant could not establish his case. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the C.C. No.164/2015 is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
