Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 92.
Instituted on : 07.02.2017.
Decided on : 06.12.2018.
Aditya Deswal son of Sh. Lal Chand Deswal, Resident of Village Dulhera, District Jhajjar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO Tower, 4th & 5th Floor, Plot No. 3, Sector 29, Gurgaon through its Manager.
2 Merit Honda, Hissar Road, Rohtak through its General Manager/ Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ankit Gulia, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. PK Behl, Advocate for OP No. 1.
OP No. 2 already exparte vide order dated 29.03.2017.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Honda Amaze bearing registration No. HR-13J-7665 on 30.08.2014 and got the same insured from OP No. 1 insurance company. On 24.07.2015, the policy was renewed for the period from 30.08.2015 to 29.08.2016 vide policy No. ITG-82158902 issued by OP No. 1 and on 24.07.2016 the policy was again renewed through broker of OP No. 1 for the period from 30.08.2016 to 29.08.2017 vide policy No. ITG-82240794. On 04.08.2016 the said vehicle met with an accident and the same was got repaired and complainant was reimbursed the claim under the policy of insurance by OP No. 1. As per rule of renewal of insurance policy, the policy was renewed for the period from 30.08.2016 to 29.08.2017 on 24.07.2016 i.e. prior to the accident date and as such NCB was given by the insurance company. On 02.09.2016, due to some fault occurred in the engine of vehicle, same was taken to authorized workshop Ring Road Honda, Gurgaon and after repair, a bill of Rs. 73,713 was raised and same was submitted to OP No. 1 for reimbursement but the same has been illegally repudiated by mentioning that the complainant has availed NCB in the present policy which should have not been claimed as the claim in previous policy No. ITG/82158902 was received by the complainant. The complainant has not suppressed any fact because on the date of renewal, the complainant has not received any claim and it was only after renewal, the vehicle met with accident. Anyhow, the complainant has returned the amount of NCB alongwith interest which has been duly received by the insurance company. Thus the OP is liable to pay the amount of claim amounting to Rs. 73,713/- to the complainant. The complainant repeatedly requested the OP No. 1 to make the payment of amount of claim but the OP refused to pay any heed to the request of complainant. Lastly prayed that the OP No. 1 may kindly be directed to pay the amount of claim amounting to Rs. 73,713/- to the complainant alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of repair till payment and also to pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that the insured has obtained the policy by misrepresentation and concealing the material facts. He has already lodged a claim in the previous policy. That the company has right repudiated claim due to NCB taken wrongfully by the complainant. The company had deputed Sh. Vikas Puri, Surveyor and Loss Assessor duly licensed by IRDA a Statutory Body to assess the loss of Car No. HR-13J-7665 and he confirmed that one claim was found in previous policy as per the screen shot obtained from the website and on verification of the policy. Insured has taken wrong NCB at the rate of 20% on the policy No. 99303962. It was in the knowledge of complainant that one claim has been taken/reported in the previous policy. NCB was given on the statement of insured. The company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and lastly prayed that complaint filed by the complainant may kindly be dismissed with cost qua the OP No. 1.
3 Whereas, OP No. 2 failed to appear before the court despite due service, hence, OP No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.03.2017. 4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 13.06.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2. Thereafter, evidence of OP No. 2 was closed by court order vide order dated 26.11.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In fact the complainant purchased a policy No. ITG/82158902 on dated 24.08.2015 for a period of one year i.e. from 30.08.2015 to 29.08.2016 which is Ex.C1. On the next year, he purchased another policy having No. ITG-82240794 on dated 29.08.2016 for a period of one year i.e. from 30.08.2016 to 29.08.2016. In this policy the complainant obtained a no claim bonus of 20% and the insurance company reduced an amount of Rs. 2161/- against the no claim bonus. On dated 04.08.2016, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and he suffered a huge loss in the vehicle. The claim was registered with the respondent insurance company and they made an objection that the complainant obtained the policy by misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. The complainant deposited the NCB amount i.e. Rs. 2161/- with the insurance company alongwith interest on dated 09.09.2016 against the policy ITG/82240947. Thereafter, the respondent insurance company has not released the claim amount to the complainant although they issued a no claim letter on dated 12.12.2016 without tendering any sufficient cause and reason. In fact, in this letter insurance company demanding no claim bonus amount from the complainant. This amount had already been deposited by the complainant on dated 09.09.2016 which is proved through the document Ex.C3. The perusal of the documents itself shows that there was no any dispute regarding the policy for the period 30.08.2015 to 19.08.2016 and the accident was caused during this period. The dispute regarding NCB was for the next year i.e. from 30.08.2016 to 29.08.2017. So, the insurance company wrongly and with illegal and malafide intention has not paid the claimed amount to the complainant. The act of opposite party of not paying the genuine claim of complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Now as per the surveyor report which is Ex.R2 itself shows that the complainant has suffered a loss of an amount of Rs. 70,338/- (Rs. Seventy thousand three hundred thirty eight only) in the vehicle.
7. As such, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the OP No. 1 to pay Rs. 70,338/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 07.02.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.12.2018
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
