Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1386/2010

R.K. Force Motors Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1386/10                                                                                                                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

M/s. R.K Force motors Ltd.,

303, Aashirwad Commercial Complex,

D1, green Park Main, New Delhi-110016

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. The Chief Manager,

        New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

        RO I and II, Connaught Circus, New Delhi

 

2. The Senior Manager,

        New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

        1 & 2 Chownk, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

 

The complaint of deficiency alleged in the case CM-4851, insured with OP, on relates to repudiation of theft claim of car no. DL8CM4851, insured with OP, on the date of theft in Jan. 2010. The theft was reported to the police and insurance company. However, the OP declined to pay the amount taking a plea that complainant had misrepresented about the non claim bonus.

The repudiation letter states as under:

“During the course of processing the claim, the NCB certificate was got verified from Reliance General Insurance Co. (previous insurer). On verification, it has been found that only 20% NCB was applicable to insured. You have therefore, concealed the true & correct facts and misrepresented to the company in this regard as provided fake certificate claiming 25% NCB, which amounts to breach of trust.”

Therefore, this complaint. The OP in its reply & evidence has reiterated the same grounds. We have summarily considered the rival case in the light of evidence and pleadings. We find that OP had issued insurance policy first and later on got the no claim bonus verified from the earlier insurer.  The only difference which it noted was that though it had given NCB of 25%, the earlier company had NCB of 20%. The OP has not produced any writing from complainant to show that he informed NCB of 25%. It appears that OP presumed NCB of 25% and issued the policy. Firstly, it should have got it verified before issuing the policy. The complaint was all through ignorant and not informed of such difference, before theft of car. It is only after the claim appeared that OP is first time trying to avoid liability on NCB verification. The OP is trying to take the advantage of its own wrong and is taking complainant by surprise to prejudice his claim. This cannot be allowed in a Court of Law.

We accordingly, hold OP committing deficiency in services, in repudiating the claim, after issuing the policy, without verification and showing its verification with complaint before proceeding further.  The OP is directed to reimburse the IDV of the car to the complainant, with interest of 9% from date of repudiation till payment. We also award compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency and litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

Pronounced in open Court on 15.07.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER