Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 83.
Instituted on : 20.02.2018.
Decided on : 13.11.2019.
Sudesh age 43 years, w/o Sh. Jaswant Singh Ahlawat H.No.1791/10 Ram Gopal Colony Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Opp. D-Park, Model Town, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
- Iffco Tokio general Insurance Company Ltd., Iffco Sadan CI Distt. Centre, Saket New Delhi 110017 through its Divisional Manager/Manager/M.D.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Kamal Gagneja, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K.Behl, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of Honda Activa bearing registration No.HR-12Z-0985 and the said vehicle was insured by the respondent company for the period 19.04.2016 to 18.04.2017 vide policy No.97598814. The total value of the vehicle was Rs.45000/- and the complainant paid Rs.1484/- for the insurance policy. On 25.06.2016 the said Activa was stolen and FIR was lodged on the same day and after passing 3-4 days, intimation in this regard was also given to Insurance company and claim ID-12079 was given to the complainant. Complainant furnished all the necessary documents with the company and requested for disbursement of claim amount but the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 06.12.2017 which is totally against the law & principle of natural justice and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.45,000/- alongwith interest from the date of theft till its actual realization and Rs.25,000/- as compensation as well as Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that vehicle in question bearing registration No.HR12Z0985 stands insured with answering insurance company vide policy No.97598814 w.e.f. 19.04.2016 to 18.04.2017 strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy on the assertion that no own damage claim has been experienced by the complainant against the previous policy and has taken the benefit of no claim bonus discount to the tune of 20% as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The insured has obtained the policy by misrepresentation and concealment of facts in respect of claim in preceding year policy. On perusal of the documents on record and investigation report of Mr. Manoj Kumar Agnihotri, it has been transpired that 20% NCB in the current year policy is found fake as the complainant has taken a claim in previous year policy(27.02.2015 to 26.02.2016) from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. for Rs.14491/- for OD claim. Therefore, as per the declaration submitted by the insured in the claim form, the own damaged benefits of the policy are forfeited. There is a violation of General Regulation No.27(F) of the Indian Motor Tariff. Hence the claim has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C28 and has closed his evidence on dated 19.12.2018. Ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on dated 08.04.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant had concealed the fact of availing claim on his previous policy and has availed the benefit of NCB 20% in the present policy for which he was not entitled. To prove its contention, opposite parties have placed on record copy of investigation report Ex.R1 alongwith claim history report document Ex.R2. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has pleaded that complainant is not entitled for any claim as he has got benefit of NCB by misrepresentation to the opposite parties and has placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid-down in 2015(2)CLT 107 titled as Inder Pal Rana Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd.
6. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that merely availing of NCB does not disentitle the complainant from the whole claim amount. Ld. counsel has also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi laid down in 2018(2)CLT 89 in Revision Petition No.1051 of 2017 titled as Anjani Gupta Vs. Future Generally India Insurance Company whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that : “If no Claim Bonus is wrongfully taken by the insured, the claim would still be payable on a non-standard basis”. We have also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.19836 of 2016 titled as National Insurance Co. Vs. Naresh Kumar whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has submitted that: “In cases of the insured taking the insurance policy of the vehicle from new insurance company and it is established that the insured by making wrongful declaration has taken benefit of No Claim Bonus, his insurance claim would be reduced proportionately”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances it is observed that the repudiation of whole claim by the opposite party on the ground of availing the benefit of NCB is illegal and as such complainant is entitled for the claim amount on non-standard basis after deduction of 25% claim amount as well as deduction of NCB benefit availed by him from the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.45000/- less 25% for non-standard claim less Rs.150/- on account of NCB i.e. Rs.33600/-. However, law cited above by ld. counsel for the opposite parties is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of the above, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.33600/-(Rupees thirty three thousand six hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.20.02.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and 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:
13.11.2019.
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
