STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution:03.07.2018
Date of final hearing: 14.08.2023
Date of pronouncement: 19.10.2023
First Appeal No.827 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:-
- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Sonepat.
- The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Manager, Divisional Office, 313 Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
Both the above, through its authorized officer at SCO 36-37, Sector-17A, Chandigarh. …..Appellants
Versus
Jasbir Singh S/o Raghbir Singh, R/o H. No.269, Sector 14, Sonepat.
…..Respondent
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. Pradeep Kumar, counsel for appellants.
Respondent-Jasbir Singh in person.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 13 days in filing of present appeal stand condoned for the reasons mentioned in application seeking condonation of delay.
2. Challenge in this appeal No.827 of 2018 is invited to the legality of order dated 17.05.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Sonepat (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.69 of 2018 vide which complaint has been allowed.
3. Complainant is registered owner of vehicle No.HR-77-1919-Maruti Swift Model-2010. It was insured with OP No.2/appellant for period w.e.f. 29.05.2017 to 28.05.2018. Unfortunately, it had met with an accident on 07.11.2017 near village Sirsadh: Highway: Panipat to Rohtak and his vehicle was totally damaged. OPs were informed and he (complainant) was asked to shift his vehicle at Jagmohan Motors, Sonepat Road-Rohtak. He dropped damaged car at Jagmohan Motors, Sonepat Road-Rohtak. Licensed Surveyor Sh. Vokesh Arya was deputed by insurer, who got survey of vehicle, done on 10.11.2017. After checking it minutely and by taking photographs; he submitted report with insurer. As per plea, surveyor at the time of inspection told estimate on repair, parts and labour amounting to Rs.1,90,875/-. Complainant submitted relevant documents including original bills to OPs. His claim was repudiated by insurer/appellants on the ground of violation of previous policy. Complainant has complained that this wrongful act of OPs has caused him mental agony & harassment.
4. OPs/appellants raised contest. In defence; it is pleaded that complainant has suppressed material facts. While getting his car insured with appellants; he misrepresented in proposal form that he has not taken any claim from United India Insurance Co. Ltd from where his vehicle was insured prior to 29.05.2017 and is entitled for No Claim Bonus (NCB). Accordingly, policy was issued to him in good faith. Misrepresentation results in violation of Section-64VB and condition No. 8 of insurance policy. No claim bonus is subject to no claim on the previous policy. Benefits under policy stands forfeited, if claim is/was made in previous policy. Insured’s claim has been repudiated by insurer. It is pleaded that surveyor submitted his report to insurer/appellants; net loss amount was assessed at Rs.50,100/- as per terms and conditions of policy. After receipt of documents and bills from complainant; claim was processed by insurer and it was found that: same is not payable. By denying other allegations; insurer has prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. Parties to this lis led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
6. On analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint vide order dated 17.05.2018 (impugned herein) and directed OPs/insurer to pay Rs.60,000/- to complainant as lump sum compensation along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization and Rs.2,000/- for rendering deficient services, harassment and litigation charges.
7. Feeling aggrieved; OPs/insurer has preferred this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for appellants and complainant/respondent-Jasbir Singh appearing in person, have been heard at length. With their able assistance; record too has been perused.
9. Learned counsel for appellants has urged that impugned order passed by learned District Consumer Commission is grossly illegal on all fronts; be it be legal or factual. Complainant cannot be granted any equitable relief as he is guilty of misrepresenting material facts in proposal form that he has not taken any claim from previous insurer viz. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. prior to 29.05.2017 (the date when currency of insurance cover with appellants began to operate). No Claim Bonus (NCB) is subject to no claim on previous policy. As per contention; complainant being guilty of breach of good faith is not entitled to any compensation and his claim was rightly repudiated. It is further argued that licensed surveyor of insurer/appellant has submitted his comprehensive report specifying therein; the net loss to the tune of Rs.50,100/-. This report has been wrongly ignored by learned District Consumer Commission and illegal amount has been awarded, over and above surveyor’s assessment.
10. Per contra, complainant has supported the impugned order dated 17.05.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Commission by urging that same is outcome of proper appreciation of facts and evidence, thereby warranting no interference.
11. Admittedly, appellant is insurer of vehicle No. HR-77-1919 owned by complainant. Currency of this insurance runs from 29.05.2017 to 28.05.2018. Erstwhile insurer of appellant’s vehicle prior to 29.05.2017 was United India Insurance Co. Ltd. In the entire text of complaint; complainant has not uttered a word that: his vehicle was previously insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. prior to 29.05.2017 and he was enjoying 50% No Claim Bonus for the policy year-2016. Instead, this plea has come in the written statement filed by the appellants. Why the complainant has not come forward with clean hands by not disclosing material facts in the proposal form, while claiming insurance of vehicle from appellants/insurer that erstwhile insurer of his vehicle was United India Insurance Company Ltd. prior to 29.05.2017 and he has not taken any claim from that insurer and was enjoying 50% No Claim Bonus under previous insurance policy, for the policy year-2016. This material fact was required to be disclosed by him while filing proposal form with insurer/appellants. Obviously previous insurance cover prior to 29.05.2017 is intrinsically co-related with current insurance cover obtained from appellants hence after 29.05.2017, for all intents and purposes. Benefits under current insurance policy are liable to be forfeited if any claim has been obtained viz-a-viz previous insurance policy. Learned District Consumer Commission has not critically considered the express stance of appellants/insurer which has majestic bearing on genesis of controversy involved in this complaint. Obviously, it has caused manifest injustice to appellants/insurer. At legal pedestal, complainant should have been non-suited. Instead his complaint was allowed through impugned order dated 17.05.2018.
12. Matter does not end here. Licensed surveyor of appellants has accessed loss to the tune of Rs.50,100/- as per the specific stand of insurer/appellants. Detailed surveyor’s report dated 14.12.2017 is Annexure R-3. As per document Annexure R-1 which is ‘No Claim Bonus Certificate’ issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd. (previous insurer) concerning vehicle No. HR-77-1919; complainant Jasbir Singh insured under policy No.1112813116P102687684 was enjoying 50% bonus for the policy year-2016. Ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi in case titled as “United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Jindal Poly Buttons Ltd.” Revision Petition No. 2920 of 2015 decided on 18.04.2017 is attracted to the factual scenario of this case. This case is based upon plea that: “because insured has taken benefit of no claim bonus by making false declaration his insurance claim would be reduced proportionately. In that case, surveyor accessed the loss at Rs.1,74,955/-. Complainant’s claim was repudiated on the ground that he had obtained a false no claim bonus of 20% while taking insurance policy in question. Revision Petition was allowed partly by directing insurance to make deduction of 20% from Rs.1,74,955/- (amount accessed by surveyor) and to pay balance amount with 8% interest per annum”. This judgment has been noticed by this Commission in its order dated 31.08.2018 and recovery beyond Rs.25,050/- (50% of Rs.50,100/-) has been stayed.
13. Accordingly, on aspect of quantum of compensation as awarded through impugned order dated 17.05.2018; interference in present appeal is warranted. Accordingly, while relying upon above cited judgment on Hon’ble National Consumer Commission; it is now held that complainant-Jasbir Singh is entitled to 50% of Rs.50,100/- (amount accessed by surveyor) which comes to Rs.25,050/-. This amount (Rs.25,050/-) will also carry interest @8% per annum, from date of filing of complaint (02.02.2018) till realization. Impugned order dated 17.05.2018 stands modified in above terms. Present appeal is disposed off accordingly being partly allowed.
14. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellants at the time of filing of this appeal be refunded to it, after due identification and verification as per rules and on expiry of period meant for further appeal /revision, if any.
15. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
16. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
17. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 19th October, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
