DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 165/2014
D.No.________________ Dated: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
MOHAN MADAN S/o SH. THAKHUR DAS,
R/o D-13/7, SECTOR-7,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
(THROUGH ATTORNEY SH. RAJESH KUMAR) … COMPLAINANT
Versus
LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENE. INS. Co. LTD.,
1st FLOOR, REAR PORTION AIPS BUILDING,
56, JANPATH, DELHI-110001. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 06.02.2014 Date of decision: 15.05.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant through his Special Power of Attorney namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased Hyundai I 10 car in 2012 bearing registration no. DL-02-CAM-8935, engine no.840945, chassis
CC No.165/2014 Page 1 of 10
no.144454 and the complainant took/renewed the insurance policy of his said car on 26.06.2013 from OP vide policy no. 2011-200201-13-1000220-00-000 for the period from 19.06.2013 to 18.06.2014. The complainant further alleged that the complainant renewed the said policy through company agent namely Sh. Love Bhatia at the complainant’s premises and the agent gave assurance to the complainant that if you give the amount of Rs.10,710/- then the policy will be zero debt policy from today onwards so that the complainant gave the cheque of Rs.10,710/- to get zero debt policy. After few months of taking the insurance policy, the complainant’s car met with an accident and got damaged, then the complainant took his car to the Deep Hyundai workshop i.e. Wazirpur, New Delhi for repair his said car and after 2 days later the executive of Deep Hyundai contacted the complainant and told him that the claim was not accepted by the insurance company and the surveyor of OP informed the complainant that the insurance company cannot accept policy and also told the complainant that the agent of the insurance company misguided and just to add on one more policy in his incentive, the executive has hidden all the details after confirming it from the company. The complainant further alleged that the complainant so many times contacted the insurance company but the insurance company did not give the relevant reply to the complainant and the complainant also complaint through e-
CC No.165/2014 Page 2 of 10
mails on 19.08.2013 regarding the dispute and on the same day, the complainant got the acknowledgement and on the next day the insurance company revert back through e-mail on 20.08.2013 at around 2:00 p.m. and then on the same day the complainant contacted OP but OP said to the complainant that OP will revert back after investigation on the matter. The complainant further alleged that through telephone OP give assurance to the complainant that the company will take action against the sale executive i.e. Love Bhatia and also give assurance to the complainant to sort out the matter and due to the said act of the OP the complainant has 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 issue the zero debt policy and to repair the damages and to pass an order that if any damage caused to the car during the period of insurance then the insurance company will repair the car as well as compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental harassment, agony and financial loss and has also sought Rs.15,000/- towards litigation cost.
3. OP has been contesting the case and filed written statement and submitted that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP further submitted that the complainant
CC No.165/2014 Page 3 of 10
vide “Motor Vehicle Insurance Proposal and Cover note” from no.20000011858 dated 18.06.2013 has proposed for insurance contract pertaining to his vehicle bearing Registration no. DL-2C-AM-8935 for the risk period from 19.06.2013 to 18.06.2014 and in the said proposal form the complainant answered the question as: claims lodged in last 3 years-nil, are you entitled for No Claim Bonus on renewal : Yes and if yes, please mention % : 20%. and alongwith proposal form, the complainant submitted copy of certificate of insurance bearing no. FPV/I0933263/11/06/D1114D which was valid for the risk period from 19.06.2012 to 18.06.2013 and as the complainant was unable to produce certificate/renewal notice in support of No Claim Bonus, he made following declarations in the proposal form: - 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. I/We further undertake that if the declaration is found to be incorrect, all benefits under the policy in respect of Section-1 of the policy will be forfeited.” Any other material information declaration and consent: “I/We hereby declare that the statements, answers given by me/us in this proposal form are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. It is hereby understood and agreed that the statements, answers and particulars provided hereinabove are the basis on which this insurance is being granted and that if after the insurance is
CC No.165/2014 Page 4 of 10
effected, it is found that any of the statements, answers or particulars are incorrect or untrue in any respect, the company shall have no liability under this insurance.” OP further submitted that OP issued a policy bearing no. 2011-200201-13-1000220-00-000 for the risk period from 19.06.2013 to 18.06.2014 giving no claim bonus benefit @ 20% in the premium payable therefore to the complainant and in order to check the veracity of statements made and answers given by the complainant in proposal from pertaining to no claim bonus benefit, written to his previous insurer i.e. Bharti Axa Gene. Ins. Co. Ltd. and the said insurer vide its mail dated 19.08.2013 conveyed OP that the complainant made two claims with them against their policy and in view of the statement and declaration made by the complainant in proposal form pertaining to no claim bonus found to be incorrect and untrue, OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 28.08.2013 and the complainant’s own acts disentitled him from claiming benefit under Section-1 of the policy from OP, the complainant is now estopped from raising any allegations against and/or asking from any kind of indemnity from OP. OP further submitted that upon receipt of claim intimation, OP appointed M/s. Mukesh Sethia & Co., an independent IRDA accredited surveyor, to assess the extent of loss and the surveyor submitted its report to OP and the loss has been assessed at Rs.10,072/- and as the complainant’s benefits under
CC No.165/2014 Page 5 of 10
Section-1 of the Policy are forfeited, this OP is under no obligation to pay any amount to the complainant. OP further submitted that the complaint filed through an attorney is not maintainable and submitted that there is no deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Complainant did not file rejoinder.
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 Special Power of Attorney, copy of registration certificate of the vehicle, copy of the policy issued by OP for the period from 19.06.2013 to 18.06.2014 issued by OP, copy of e-mail communications between the parties, copy of driving licence and copy of statement of account and copy of aadhar card of Sh. Rajesh Kumar.
6. On the other hand on behalf of OP Sh. Jitendra Jain, Chief Litigation Manager of OP filed his affidavit which is on the basis of the written statement of OP and OP also filed written arguments. OP also filed copy of Power of Attorney, copy of Motor Vehicle Insurance Proposal & Cover note, copy of Private Car Packaging Policy issued by OP, copy of letter dated 28.08.2013 sent by OP to the complainant, copy of Motor Survey Report dated 22.08.2013 and copy of photographs of the vehicle.
CC No.165/2014 Page 6 of 10
7. OP has also filed an affidavit in evidence of Sh. Mukesh Rattan Setia, Surveyor & Loss Assessor and also filed copy of Motor Survey Report dated 22.08.2013 prepared by the surveyor thereby assessing the loss at Rs.10,072.19. OP also filed copies of communication dated 19.08.2013 of OP to the previous insurer i.e. Bharti AXA Gene. Ins. Co. Ltd. through e-mail and reply dated 19.08.2013 of the previous insurer to OP through e-mail. OP has also filed copy of repudiation letter dated 28.08.2013 sent to the complainant and also filed copy of Motor Survey Report dated 22.08.2013 of the Surveyor.
8. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on following authorities/case laws:
i) F.A. No. 968 of 2012 in case entitled The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shinder Pal Singh & Ors. passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh on 23.07.2013.
ii) Appeal No.350/2009 in case entitled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarvesh Modi passed by Hon’ble State Commission on 18.11.2009.
iii) F.A. No. 1422 of 2008 in case entitled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhupinder Singh passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh on 30.10.2012.
iv) IV (2012) CPJ 80 (NC) in case entitled Brij Bhushan Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ANR. passed by Hon’ble National Commission on 22.08.2012.
v) Revision Petition No.2721 of 2007 in case entitled Consumer Education & Research Society & ANR. Vs. India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. passed by National Commission decided on 13.12.2007.
9. Ld. Counsel for OP relied on following authority/case law:
CC No.165/2014 Page 7 of 10
i) IV (2012) CPJ 80 (NC) in case entitled Brij Bhushan Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd. & ANR. passed by National Commission on 22.08.2012.
10. 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 complainant and OP. By way of Power of Attorney, the complainant Sh. Mohan Madaan has authorized Sh. Rajesh Kumar to file the complaint case, to sign the same and to appear in the Court and file pleadings, affidavits, applications and to give evidence or to file any documents and to give evidence/statement and to file affidavit in the complaint case as he is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, in the present case the complainant Sh. Mohan Madaan has filed his affidavit in evidence. Thus, it cannot be said that the complaint is not signed and filed by a proper person and it cannot be said that Sh. Rajesh Kumar was not authorized to sign and institute the complaint and the first defence raised by OP cannot be considered and there is no merits in the same.
11. As regards the other defence raised by OP is concerned though OP has placed on record copy of communications dated 19.08.2013 sent by OP to the previous insurer thereby enquiring about No Claim Bonus by the complainant in respect of the vehicle in the previous year and the reply dated 19.08.2013 received by OP from the previous insurer i.e. Bharti AXA Gene. Ins. Co. Ltd. about filing
CC No.165/2014 Page 8 of 10
2 claims by the complainant in respect of the same vehicle in the previous year. But as per G.R.-27 of Indian Motor Tariff OP was bound to enquire from the previous insurance company within 21 days from the date of allowing the NCB and period of 21 days is the stipulated period. Applying the above provision of G.R.-27. It is clearly seen that OP has violated the provision of G.R.-27 of Indian Motor Tariff. OP had enquired about NCB from the previous insurer only vide mail dated 19.08.2013 whereas OP has allowed NCB while issuing the policy for the period from 19.06.2013 to 18.06.2014 and OP could have informed the complainant about false declaration regarding NCB and could have informed the complainant about cancellation of the policy. The record shows that no such step was taken by OP during the stipulated period of 21 days from the date of issuance of policy and allowing NCB. Thus, there is no merits in the defence of OP. Thus, OP has failed to prove its defence. Accordingly in the circumstances of the case OP ought not to have repudiated the claim of the complainant and ought to have passed the claim at least on the basis of surveyor report. 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.10,072/- being the amount of loss/damaged to the vehicle as assessed by the surveyor.
CC No.165/2014 Page 9 of 10
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- 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 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 15th day of May, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
UPLOADED BY:-SATYENDRA JEET
CC No.165/2014 Page 10 of 10
