STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 27.10.2017
Date of final hearing: 14.08.2024
Date of pronouncement: 21.10.2024
First Appeal No.1289 of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:-
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Back Bay Reclamation, Mumbai and at 5th Floor, Tower-1, Stellar IT Park, C-25, Sector 62 Noida-201301, through Pankaj Kumar Manager-Legal. ...Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Chand S/o Sh. Dori Lal, R/o H. No. 3126-B, Company Bag, Rewari, District Rewari. …..Respondent
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Argued by:- Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, counsel for the appellant.
None for respondent.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 65 days in filing of present appeal stand condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.
2. In this appeal No.1289 of 2017, order dated 25.07.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Rewari (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.433 of 2011; vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed, has been assailed.
3. Complainant’s vehicle Tata Safari No. HR-36H-4976, duly insured with opposite parties from 07.09.2010 to 06.09.2011 had met with an accident on 10.01.2011 at 11.00 pm due to ‘fog’ and intimation was given immediately to opposite parties. Vehicle was taken at Tata Motors Authorized Service Center-Rewari. As per plea; he (complainant) filed claim vide No. CZ2300 10006741; also submitted demanded paper/documents and completed formalities. He served legal notice dated 24.05.2011 through his counsel. His grievance is that claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has not been paid to him despite repeated requests. Accordingly, compliant has been filed.
4. In response, OP/insurer/appellant raised contest and pleaded in its defense that: at the time of insurance; complainant provided particulars of previous insurance policy for the period from 07.09.2009 to 06.09.2010 and insurer issued new insurance policy w.e.f. 07.09.2010 to 06.09.2011 without any inspection/verification. Previous policy issued by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. was for the period from 25.06.2009 to 24.06.2010 and in this way the complainant by producing forged/manipulated policy, got issued new policy, fraudulently. It is pleaded that current policy (issued by appellant-HDFC Ergo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.) is void on the ground that it was obtained by non-disclosure of material fact or by representation of fact which was false in material particular. Insurer is not liable to indemnify insured/complainant and he is not entitled to compensation. Surveyor, at the time of inspection of vehicle found that damage sustained to it was very old and rusted. Many parts were found missing from vehicle and many were in loose/dismantled condition. Surveyor has/had observed that vehicle was not in serviceable condition and appeared as if abandoned from long time. As per plea, intimation of damage was given after a delay of 15 days and thus claim was rightly repudiated and intimated to complainant. There arises no cause of action against it.
5. Parties to this lis led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
6. On analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Rewari has allowed the complaint vide order dated 25.07.2017 and directed OP/insurer to pay surveyor’s assessed amount i.e. Rs.94,369.63 i.e. Rs. 94,370/- to complainant within one month from date of receipt of copy of order, failing which amount shall fetch interest @9% p.a. from date of order, till payment. Compensation of Rs.20,000/- has also been allowed to complainant.
7. Feeling aggrieved; insurer/OP has filed this appeal and vide order dated 04.12.2017 of this Commission; implementation of impugned order has been stayed. In proceedings of this appeal; as per status visible from appeal file; respondent/complainant remained unrepresented since 30.10.2019.
8. Learned counsel for appellant/insurer has been heard at length. With his able assistance; record too has been perused. Learned counsel for the appellant has just raised single contention that proposal form cum cover note for motor insurance (Ex.C2) was valid from 07.09.2010 to 06.09.2011. Accordingly, private car package policy (Annexure A-5) was issued. This current insurance policy for subject vehicle, as per contention, has become void, as previous policy (Annexure R2); so issued by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. which had currency of validity from 25.06.2009 to 24.06.2010, was on its production to appellant/insurer, shown by him (complainant) to be valid from 07.09.2009 to 06.09.2010 as per document Annexure A-6 appended along with appeal. It is urged that complainant has/had fraudulently misrepresented and manipulated these facts to secure an advantage (cover of insurance 07.09.2010 to 06.09.2011) from appellant viz-a-viz subject vehicle No. HR-36H-4976, in order to cover date of accident: i.e. 10.01.2011. It is urged that there was no FIR with regard to alleged accident and so also, no motor accident claim case was filed. Hence above misrepresentation on behalf of complainant could not be unveiled.
9. On analyzing above contention of learned counsel for appellant/insurer; this Commission is of firm view that this appeal must succeed. Reason is obvious. Two documents, both issued by HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. viz: Ex.C-2 (proposal form cum cover note for motor insurance) and Annexure R3 (private car package policy) on their conjoint reading would prove that subject vehicle No. HR-36H-4976 has/had insurance cover validity from 07.09.2010 to 06.09.2011. Be that as it may, still, insurer/appellant has no liability toward insured, despite the fact that date of accident (10.01.2011) falls within currency period of insurance viz.: 07.09.2010 to 06.09.2011. Previous insurance of subject vehicle was got from Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. as it is explicitly visible from policy certificate No.1304792311006339 mentioned on this insurance policy (Annexure R-2). From perusal of this document Annexure R-2/Annexure A-7; so relied upon by appellant/insurer and reflecting above certificate number it is fairly deciphered that this insurance period is/was from 25.06.2009 to 24.06.2010. In sheer contrast, document Annexure A-6 (appended along with the appeal) and reflecting same/identical certificate number viz.: 1304792311006339 depicts that period of insurance qua subject vehicle is/was from 07.09.2009 to 06.09.2010. To unveil this mystery; insurer/appellant has got verified authenticity of insurance policy certificate No. 1304792311006339 and this Policy’s verification report (Annexure R-1) dated 09.02.2011 has totally endorsed the stance of insurer/appellant that said insurance policy was valid from 25.06.2009 to 24.06.2010 qua subject vehicle and insured is none else but complainant-Mahesh Chand Sharma. There is no reason before this Commission to discard and brush aside policy verification report dated 09.02.2011 Annexure R-1.
10. Above subjective discussion on factual aspects would rise to legal implication that insured has/had actively concealed the actual fact that period of insurance qua subject vehicle No. HR-36H-4976 was from 25.06.2009 to 24.06.2010. By falsely projecting the period of insurance from 07.09.2009 to 06.09.2010 as per document Annexure A-6; complainant has/had actively secured current Private Car Insurance Policy (Annexure A-5/Annexure R-3) from insurer/appellant in his mischievous attempt to show with absolute consistency regarding period of insurance viz-a-viz fake previous policy Annexure A-6 (appended with this appeal). Complainant must not be allowed to succeed as he has succeeded in actively deceiving insurer/appellant by submitting forged insurance policy bearing No. 1304792311006339 (Annexure A-6). There is no disclosure with regard to previous policy certificate No. 1304792311006339, anywhere in the entire text of complaint. Learned District Consumer Commission has also nowhere discussed the policy verification report dated 09.02.2011-Annexure R1 in the impugned order dated 25.07.2017 which, nonetheless, has legal effect of non-suiting complainant/respondent herein. Previous policy Annexure A-6 submitted by complainant to insurer/appellant was fake and forged to his very knowledge from very beginning, while obtaining current policy Annexure A-5/Annexure R-3. Curiously enough, non-discussion by learned District Consumer Commission on fact stated in Policy Verification Report dated 09.02.2011-Annexure R-1 is a fallacy committed by it. There would be no legal liability upon insurer/appellant on the foundation of proposal form cum cover note for motor insurance-Ex.C-2 and resultant private car package policy Annexure R-3/Annexure A-5, towards insured Mahesh Chand, qua subject vehicle No. HR-36H-4976 and accordingly it is held. While observing so; this Commission gains strength from judgment of Hon’ble High Court in case reported as 2018(4) PLR 217 titled as “Rajveer Singh Gurjar Vs. Veer Singh” (FAO No. 3874 of 2015) and “Rajveer Singh Gurjar Vs. Mithlesh” (FAO No. 3875 of 2015) both decided on 25.07.2018. As per ratio of law laid down therein by Hon’ble High Court; policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by non-disclosure of material fact or by representation of fact which was false in some material particular.
11. This Commission is not oblivious of the fact that: courts of law, over centuries, have frowned upon those litigants, whose approach towards it is accentuated by fraudulent and mischievous designs and with element of forgery, as it is so proved in present case. Such litigants are not entitled to any equitable relief and their cause must be thrown overboard.
12. As a sequel thereto this appeal succeeds and same is allowed/accepted. Impugned order dated 25.07.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Rewari in complaint case No.433 of 2011 titled as “Mahesh Chand Vs. HDFC Ergo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.” is set aside. As a flowing consequence, complaint by complainant is dismissed and he (complainant) is accordingly non-suited.
13. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellant 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.
14. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. 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.
16. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 21st October, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
