DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 977/2016
D.No.________________ Dated: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SATISH KUMAR,
S/o LATE SH. DHARAM CHAND WADHWA,
R/o 25/19, OLD RAJINDER NAGAR,
DELHI-110060. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENE. INS. Co. LTD.,
AT 10th FLOOR,
AGGARWAL CYBER PLAZA-I,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,
NORTH-WEST DELHI,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 19.09.2016 Date of decision: 03.02.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle i.e. Toyota Innova 2014 bearing registration no. DL-10-CE-6631 and the said vehicle was insured by ICICI Lombard Gene. Ins. Co. Ltd. and it was
CC No. 977/2016 Page 1 of 8
private Car Package policy valid from 18.05.2014 to 17.05.2015 (mid-night). In the month of May-2015, agent of OP contacted the complainant on 14.05.2015 for renewal of above said policy and the complainant handed over the premium amount through cheque bearing no.372877 dated 14.05.2015 for the premium amount of Rs.26,378/- as calculated and demanded and OP agreed to do the insurance for value of the car at IDV of Rs.10,00,569/- for comprehensive insurance policy. On 16.05.2015, OP issued the cover note no. 20000276011 and the period of the insurance policy from 18.05.2015 to 17.05.2016. On 21.05.2015, OP issued certificate of insurance-cum-policy schedule detail of the insurance cover and break-up of premium in respect of the said vehicle. The complainant further alleged that the said car met an accident on 20.08.2015 and the complainant got his vehicle repaired from the workshop of Galaxy Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and the repairing charges were paid by OP to the complainant as per the provisions of the insurance policy. Thereafter, the said vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 24.11.2015 and 25.11.2015 and on 25.11.2015 an FIR no.020515/2015 was lodged e-Police Station-District Crime Branch, Delhi and the information of the theft was also given to OP without any delay on 25.11.2015. After lodging FIR, the complainant was in regular touch with police and inspite of their best effort, the police could not find any clue about the stolen vehicle and on 16.12.2015, the police filed untraced report in the
CC No. 977/2016 Page 2 of 8
Court of ACMM-01, Central District, TIS Hazari Court, Delhi. The complainant further alleged that after getting the intimation of untraced report dated 16.12.2015, the complainant again approached OP for speedy disposal of his claim in respect of the stolen car. On 06.02.2016, the complainant received claim repudiation letter dated 02.02.2016, repudiating the claim of the complainant in respect of his stolen car and the complainant was shocked and surprised to know the reason stated by OP as making an incorrect statement is wrong, false and frivolous and the repudiation of the claim, after about 9 months from the date of commencement of the policy on the ground that is wrong, unjustified and illegal and the complainant further alleged that due to the act of repudiation of the claim by OP, the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,569/- alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from 25.11.2015 till its realization as well as compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental harassment, agony and financial loss.
3. OP has been contesting the case and filed written statement and submitted that in the proposal form under “Previous Insurance Details” the complainant has mentioned that previously vehicle was insured with M/s ICICI Lombard Gene. Ins. Co. Ltd. vide policy no.
CC No. 977/2016 Page 3 of 8
TIL/10189786 which was valid till 17.05.2015 and the complainant further represented that he had not made any claim in last 3 years and further that on renewal he is entitled to No Claim Bonus (NCB) @ 20% from this opponent and the complainant further made declaration in the proposal form as “NCB Declaration: I/We declare that the rate of NCB claimed by me/us is correct and that no claim has arisen in the expiring policy period. The complainant further declared as: “I/We agree and undertake to convey to Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. Ltd. any change/alterations carried out in the risk proposed for insurance after submission of this proposal form.” OP further submitted that to substantiate his claim for entitlement for NCB, the complainant annexed copy of renewal notice issued by his previous insurer on 29.01.2015 and in the said renewal notice, at point 2 it is specifically mentioned by his previous insurer as “kindly note No Claim Bonus (NCB) entitlement due to you, has already been considered while calculating the premium. In case of any claim arising post this communication, the NCB would stand withdrawn and the premium shall get modified accordingly” and in the premium calculation schedule of said renewal notice, it was shown that premium has been calculated considering NCB @ 20%. OP further submitted that on the information given, representations made and documents annexed by the complainant in and/or to the proposal form, OP had issued Private Car package policy no.2011-200102-15-1001032-00-000 to
CC No. 977/2016 Page 4 of 8
the complainant. On 25.11.2015, OP received an information from the complainant that on 25.11.2015 his vehicle was got stolen and as matter of due diligence and in order to verify the genuinity of the complainant’s statement qua entitlement for No Claim Bonus (NCB) as made in the proposal form, OP made enquiries with his previous insurer and the complainant’s previous insurer informed OP that the complainant had lodged claim with them on 18.05.2015 for the loss dated 17.05.2015. OP further submitted that since the date of proposal form till the claim of the complainant was repudiated, the complainant never informed OP that he had availed claim from his previous insurer and from the very contents of renewal notice of his previous insurer, the complainant was well aware of the fact that NCB has bearing on the premium amount i.e. consideration payable for insurance contracts and the complainant received policy document which showed that the complainant was given discount under Own Damage Section @ 20% in the form of No Claim Bonus and the complainant was guilty of breach of material terms & conditions of the policy and OP repudiated the claim.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of Certificate of Insurance cum policy schedule issued by ICICI Lombard Gene. Ins. Co. Ltd., copy of Motor Vehicle Insurance Proposal and Cover Note issued by OP,
CC No. 977/2016 Page 5 of 8
copy of Certificate of Insurance Cum Policy Schedule issued by OP, copies of receipts issued by Toyota Galaxy Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, copy of FIR, copy of e-mail dated 22.12.2015, copy of letter dated 15.12.2015 sent by the complainant to OP and copy of Claim Repudiation Letter dated 02.02.2016.
6. On the other hand on behalf of OP Sh. Dinesh Jhalani, Legal Manager of OP filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the written statement of OP. OP has also filed copy of Motor Insurance Cover note issued by OP, copy of Private Car Package Policy, copy of Private Car Package Policy Wording and copy of Claim-Repudiation letter dated 02.02.2016. OP has also filed written arguments.
7. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on following authority/case law:
i) III (2014) CPJ 576 (NC) in case entitled Vijay Somany Vs. Reliance Gene. Ins. Co. Ltd. decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 13.08.2014.
8. Ld. Counsel for OP relied on following authority/case law:
i) Revision Petition No.1046 of 2015 in case entitled New India assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Kumar passed by Hon’ble National Commission decided on 12.10.2015.
9. This forum has considered the case of the parties in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the parties as well as case laws relied on by Counsel for both the parties.
10. Hon’ble National Commission in the case law entitled New India
CC No. 977/2016 Page 6 of 8
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Kumar which is a later judgement has held that “when there was violation of terms & conditions of the policy, for obtaining a policy false declaration regarding no claim taken on previous policy was made and in such circumstances, the complainant was entitled to claim on Non Standard Basis and insurance company ought to have obtained information from earlier insurer.”
11. Referring to the facts of the present case, it is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant has taken claim from the previous insurer and accordingly ought to have informed the OP company about rectification of the premium towards the policy. Thus, the complainant is entitled to claim on Non-Standard Basis. Accordingly in the circumstances of the case OP ought not to have repudiated the claim of the complainant as a whole and ought to have passed the claim at least on Non-Standard Basis. Accordingly, we hold OP guilty of deficiency in service.
12. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- being the proportionate value of the said vehicle on Non-Standard Basis and the complainant to execute necessary documents for transfer of the vehicle in the name of OP company.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.80,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
CC No. 977/2016 Page 7 of 8
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.
13. The above amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 3rd day of February, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 977/2016 Page 8 of 8
UPLOADED BY: SATYENDRA JEET
