CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.734/2009
SHRI RAM MEHAR
S/O SHRI SURAT SINGH,
R/O H.NO.84-A, NAGLI SAKRAWATI,
NAJAFGARH,
NEW DELHI-110043
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- SH. RAKESH KUMAR, MANAGER,
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
BLOCK 60, 2ND FLOOR,
OKHLA PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI
- M/S RELAICNE GENERAL INSURANCE
S.C.O. 400-401 & 402(II FLOOR)
MODEL TOWN, DELHI ROAD,
ROHTAK(HARYANA)
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 20.05.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
It is not in dispute that complainant got his Tata Indigo car insured with OP-2 for IDV of Rs.3,10,000/- for the period 14.09.2008 to 13.09.20009.
The case of the complainant is that the aforesaid care met with an accident on 16.09.2008 at about 8.30 to 9.00 P.M. and an FIR No.375/2008 dated 17.09.2008 u/s 279/337/304-A IPC was registered at PS Sadar Bahadurgarh(Haryana). In that accident daughter-in-law of complainant died and the car was badly damaged. The factum of the accident was duly brought to the notice of OP and OP appointed surveyor who inspected the damaged car and assured that necessary claim would be passed shortly, however, till date the claim was not passed even despite service of legal notice. It is stated that it is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.3,10,000/- i.e. insured declared value of vehicle plus Rs.50,000/- for compensation and Rs.22,000/- for litigation expenses.
OPs in the reply took the preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable as complainant has obtained the policy by suppressing the facts. The vehicle was not inspected at the time of taking the present policy as complainant filled the proposal form and submitted the previous policy No.0719131 issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. from 14.09.07 to 13.09.08. On the basis of said policy, renewal policy was issued by OP from 14.9.2008 to 13.9.2009. The present policy was issued in a good faith believing complainant’s proposal regarding previous policy issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd.(UIICL). After the inquiry from the UIICL, it was revealed that no policy was issued by them to complainant. It is submitted that the insurance business is guided by the Indian Motor Tariff and General Rules as issued by the IRDA. Therefore, as per GR-27(F) of Indian Motor Tariff the complaint has played fraud upon the OP. GR-27(F) reads as under:-
“In the event of insured, transferring his insurance from one insurer to another insurer the transferee insurer may allow the same rate of NCB, which the insured would have received for the previous insurer. Evidence of insured’s NCB entitlement either in the form of renewal notice or a letter confirming the NCB entitlement from the previous insurer, will be required for this purpose. Where the insured is unable to produce such evidence of NCB entitlement from the previous insurer the claim NCB may be permitted after obtaining from the insured the declaration as per the following wordings:
I/we declare that the rate of NCB claimed by me/us is correct and that no claim as arisen in expiring policy period(copy of the policy enclosed). I/we further undertake that if this declaration is found to be incorrect all benefits under the policy main expiring policy period (copy of the policy enclosed). I/we further undertake that if this declaration is found to be incorrect all benefits under the policy in r/o section 1 of the policy will stand forfeited.”
The particulars of previous insurance were got verified and it was revealed that in fact the vehicle was not insured previously with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and particulars furnished by complainant were false. It is submitted that OP was justified in repudiating the claim. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
We have gone through the records and written submission of the parties.
Complainant has admitted in the rejoinder that he submitted the insurance cover issued by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and stated that its genuineness can be verified by this Forum. It is significant to note that OP has placed on record the letter which was written by OP-2 to the manager of United India Insurance Company Ltd. and United India Insurance Company Ltd. has specifically wrote on that letter that the insurance cover note No.0719131 dated 12.09.2007 does not pertain to their insurance company and it was verified by Parkhi Evaluators appointed by OP-2 and they have submitted their report alongwith report of United India Insurance Company Ltd.
There is no doubt that complainant has obtained the insurance policy by making false declaration Complainant has played a fraud at the time of obtaining the policy hence the repudiation was justified. Reference is placed on the case of Brij Bhusan Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. etc., Revision Petition No.33 of 2012 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 22.08.2012.
In view of above stated facts, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
