DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.573/2010
Sh. Pankaj Malik
S/o Sh. B. S. Malik,
R/o 98-B, GG-1,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi - 110018
….Complainant
Versus
M/s Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited,
Having its office at:
M-10, 2nd Floor, Deepsons Building,
South Extension, Part-II,
New Delhi - 110049 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 08.09.2010
Date of Order : 08.02.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U. K. Tyagi
The Complainant has put in a claim on account of theft of a insured vehicle for the estimated cost of said vehicle alongwith interest @18% p.a.; to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for sufferings; and Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
The facts of case are that the Complainant was the owner of the Jeep(Bolero Plus) make Mahindra bearing R.C. No. DL-4C AV-0787, Engine No.G874G 2717, Chassis no. MAIX 52 GBK 72G35234, he had taken the policy vide Certificate No.2008-V0184997-FPV dated 24.10.2008 vide cover note no. A1167901 from Future General Insurance Co. Ltd. through an agent i.e. Star Associated Code No.60002955 for the period beginning from 24.10.2008 to 23.10.2009. The said vehicle was stolen and to this effect, a complaint/FIR was lodged with Vikas Puri P.S. M/s Future General India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred as OP) was also intimated about the theft of the vehicle. On the receipt of intimation, “The shield” was appointed as a surveyor by the OP company.
The surveyor intimated and called for requisite documents vide its letter dated 19.05.2009. The OP also intimated vide letter dated 02.09.2009 about the previous policy for the period 24.09.2007 till 23.09.2008 stating to be fake. As per verification report received from M/s Reliance GIC Ltd., the OP further intimated that the subject claim stands repudiated on the ground of misrepresentation of material facts at the time of issuance of policy.
OP contended that the Complainant had given wrong information about the previous insurance policy. The previous policy was for the duration upto 23.09.2008 whereas the Complainant provided the duration of this previous policy from 24.09.2007 to 23.10.2008. As such, the said vehicle was uninsured for one month. By providing the incorrect details, the Complainant had breached the basic principle of utmost good faith. Had the OP known this gap in insurance, the OP would have got the vehicle inspected and inter-alia to ascertain the existence of vehicle as on date of insurance. The Complainant had violated the provision 149(2) of M.V. Act, 1988 as non-disclosure of material fact or misrepresentation of fact leads to void of the policy. The said provision is similar to condition No.8 of the instant Insurance Policy. The said condition seems as under:
“The due observance and fulfilment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of this Policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this Policy.” The OP has also referred the case of Rattan Lal and Anr V/S Metropolitan Insurance Co. Ltd., the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “it is well settled law in the filed of insurance that contracts of insurance are contracts uberrima fides and every fact of materiality must be disclosed otherwise there is good ground for recession.” This position of law was referred to in P C Chacko & anr.-versus Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Further in LIC of India v.s Smt. G M Channabasamma the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a contract of insurance is a contract of utmost good faith and the assured is under a solemn obligation to make full disclosure of fact.
The OP has also disputed genuineness of the subject vehicle for which the Complainant has filed claim. It further states that they have issued the policy for the vehicle having Engine No.7442717 with Chassis No.723352 vide certificate No. 2008-V0184997-FPV dated 24.10.2008 as also stated by the surveyor vide its survey report.
Both the parties have filed evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments. Rejoinder is also or record. Oral arguments heard and concluded.
The material placed on record was gone through by this Commission. The OP categorically stated that insured vehicle with details mentions above in his averment was never stolen and FIR wrt stolen vehicle on 06.11.2008 is different one as maintained by OP. It is noticed that the surveyor did write two letters on 14.04.2009 and 01.05.2009 for requisition of certain documents. The documents were not supplied. After detail verification, the surveyor found that “the identity of vehicle stolen is different from the vehicle insured with the OP and violation of policy condition by the insured would make the claim liable to be repudiated.” The surveyor also pointed out that the Complainant had provided the wrong information about previous insurance policy from through a forged cover note to take benefit of gap of one month. The vehicle was insured till 23.09.2008 only and not till 23.10.2008 investigation report alongwith annexures is exhibited as R-4(Colly).
As such, it is noted with alacrity by this Commission that the Complainant has tried to take the benefit of the insurance by concealing the material facts on two counts. Firstly, by way of manipulating the date of currency of period of the previous policy by one month to cover the gap between two policies and secondly, to corner the benefits of insurance policy the details of the stolen vehicle were matched with the vehicle which was insured by the OP.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission is of the considered view that the complaint is devoid of merit and claim of the complainant is rejected accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
