Delhi

New Delhi

CC/39/2015

Ravi Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.39/2015                                                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Ravi Kumar

S/o Sh. Kamaljeet Rai

R/o PL-4, Indirapuram

Shakti Khand-4

Ghaziabad, U.P.                                                                                                                          ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

Liberty Videocon

General Insurance Company Limited

1^st Floor Rear Portion ALPS Building

56, Janpath Central, Delhi

New Delhi-110001

                                                                                                                            ……………OPPOSITE PARTY

 

H.M. VYAS - MEMBER

 

ORDER

      The gist of the complaint has purchased a Maruti Suzuki Dzire, VDI bearing UP-14-BK-0621, which was under insurance cover of the OP of the period 18/05/2014 to 17/05/2015. It is alleged that the said policy was taken by agent of OP who apprised large benefit under the policy. The cover note was issued for the said period during validity policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 30/07/2014, the complainant filed claim of Rs. 56,657/- which was repudiated by the OP on 19/08/2014. Following prayer has been  made:-

1. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 56,657/- to the complainant being the amount of repairs incurred on the insured vehicle subsequent to the happening of the accident on
2. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- against the inconvenience and harassment caused due to the deficient services of the OP.
3. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to complainant as litigation expenses.

The OP was noticed and filed version resisted the complaint.

It is alleged that the claim was rightly repudiated as a complaint concealed the material facts are as a impact over the claim. It is stated that the complainant had not disclosed that from the previous insurer taken a claim but did not disclosed  in the proposal form and obtained a benefits  20% no claim bonus.

The copy of the proposal form, the repudiation letter and communication from the previous insurer regarding the claim enjoyment have been filed.

The complainant has filed rejoinder by evidence by way of affidavit. The OP also filed evidence by way of affidavit. The OP also filed evidence by way of affidavit.  The agent has also filed evidence in affidavit denying all the allegations against her besides affidavit of the surveyor.

Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments, oral arguments were also addressed by the parties.

We have considered the materials placed before us and submissions made by the parties with relevant provisions of law.

The only issue involved in this case regarding repudiation of the claim amount is  non-discloser of the earlier claimed benefit had by the complainant from the previous insurer. The copy of proposal form and the communication from the previous insurer given to to the present OP have been seen. A perusal their of clearly shown that the complainant had taken claim from the previous insurer and for the proposal form, there is such discloser in these facts, we are guided by the Apex Court judgement in this case of PC Chako and Anr. Vs. Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. Reported as (2008)1SCC321 and Satvant Kaur Sandhu V/s New India Insurance Company Ltd. reported as (2009)8SCC316. It was held that when the information on specific aspect  is asked in the proposal form, the assured is under a solemn obligation to make a true and full discloser of the information on the subject which is within his acknowledgement. In the instant case the complaint was aware to have availed the claim amount from the previous insurer but in the proposal form, it was not specifically disclosed interalia holding us to construe that the complainant concede the material facts and also enjoy no claim benefit from the OP.

In the light of above facts and legal position, we are of the considered view that the repudiation of the claim by the OP was justified holding,  accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

A copy each of this order each be sent to the parties free of cost by post as per statutory requirement.

Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

     Pronounced in open Forum on 30/05/2019

                                     (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                            (H M VYAS)

                   MEMBER                                                                                MEMBER