1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he insured his vehicle bearing No. OD-10D-2030 (Toyota Etious GD Model) with the OP through online for the period from 07.08.2016 to 06.08.2017 vides Policy No.VPC0758561000100 under zero based depreciation.  It is submitted that the complainant had insured his vehicle for previous term with ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. and as the present insurance was obtained through online, no agent was helped the complainant and the OP did not ask the complainant about previous history of insurance of the vehicle and online payment of Rs.16, 950/- was made to the OP as premium.  It is further submitted that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 08.11.2016 resulting damage to AC Condenser and Bumper and as per advice of OP, the vehicle was shifted to M/s. Leela Krishna Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam and a claim bearing No. PV00303126 was initiated.  Repair to the AC Condenser was made but on the next day the agent of OP informed to the complainant that his claim is rejected by the Insurance Co.  It is submitted that the complainant stopped repair in the half way and paid Rs.9872/- towards repair of Condenser.  The repair to Bumper could not be taken up which costs Rs.13, 000/- due to want of money with the complainant.  It is also further submitted that on 30.11.2016 the OP sent repudiation letter stating that “there has been misrepresentation of fact with regard to vehicle claim history under the previous policy” without insisting claim history of previous policy.  The complainant submits that the total claim comes to Rs.22, 872/- and non settlement of claim by OP amounts deficiency in service on his part.  Thus the complainant prayed the Forum to direct the OP to pay Rs.22, 872/- towards repair charges with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.10, 000/- towards costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  Hence the matter was heard from the complainant through his A/R for orders on merit with available materials on record.

3.                     In this case, the complainant has filed copy of certificate of insurance issued by the OP in respect of the vehicle No. OR 10D 2030 of the complainant vide Policy No.VPC0758561000100 for the period 07.8.2016 to 06.8.2017.  It is seen from the record that the complainant has paid Rs.16, 950/- through online as premium.  The complainant stated that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 08.11.2016 and in support of his above contention, the complainant has filed copy of FIR dt.26.11.2016 filed by him with the local PS.  In the FIR it has been clearly mentioned that due to accident, the AC Condenser and Bumper of the vehicle has been damaged.  Further the complainant submitted that on intimation, the OP advised the complainant to produce the vehicle at M/s. Leela Krishna Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam which is an authorised Showroom of the vehicle.

4.                     The case of the complainant is that one Laxman Rao, the Agent of the OP inspected the vehicle and assured to settle the claim but on the next day the agent of the OP informed the complainant that the Company has rejected the claim and hence no claim benefit will be provided to the insured.  Then the complainant stopped repairing on the half way and paid Rs.9872/- to the repairer towards fitting and fixing of AC Condenser only and Bumper repairing could not be taken up which costs Rs.13, 000/- due to want of money.  Thereafter the OP sent repudiation letter dt.30.11.2016 stating that there has been misrepresentation of fact with regard to vehicle claim history under previous policy.

5.                     Perused the repudiation letter dt.30.11.2016 issued by the OP.  The complainant stated that he had made online insurance and no agent of the OP helped the complainant for getting the insurance policy and the payment was made through online also.  The complainant further stated that the OP had never asked him about the claim history under previous policy before issuing the policy in question and the complainant had no scope to say anything to the OP.

6.                     In absence of counter and participation of the OP in this proceeding, we lost opportunity to know anything from him about the allegations of the complainant and hence the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  In this case, the complainant had obtained the policy through online without help of any agent of the OP.  Had the complainant been asked about the previous claim history, he would have been disclosed all those things through online but the OP had not given any scope to the complainant.  It is seen that the fact of accident is true and the complainant has repaired the AC Condenser at the authorised garage on payment of Rs.9872/- vide M. R. No.10193 dt.12.11.2016 and the Bumper repair could not be done which costs Rs.13, 000/- due to non cooperation of the OP.  Further the policy obtained by the complainant is a zero based depreciation policy and hence the OP is to bear the total loss sustained.  In order to prove its case, active participation of OP in this proceeding was necessary but non participation became fatal to the OP.

7.                     From the above facts and circumstances, it can be concluded that the repudiation of claim by the OP is illegal and that has been made without application of mind and hence the complainant is entitled for cost of repair of AC Condenser at Rs.9872/- along with cost of Bumper at Rs.13, 000/-.  Thus the complainant is entitled to get Rs.22, 872/- towards repair of the vehicle with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of repudiation.  Further due to such inaction of the OP, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will be just and proper.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to pay Rs.22, 872/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 30.11.2016 and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)