Complainant Dr.Surinder Kaur Pannu vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to refund the claim amount alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. till its realization besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.10,000/- for damages and  Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.          The case of the complainant in brief is that she got her vehicle Maruti D zire bearing Registration No.PB-06-V-6969 insured vide policy no.401502/31/14/6100000534 from the opposite parties through Ajay Mahajan, General Insurance Adviser for the period from 24.04.2014 to midnight of 23.04.2015. However, during the period of insurance the car met with an accident on 8.07.2014. The opposite parties were duly intimated and opposite parties asked her to take the vehicle in workshop. Accordingly, she took her vehicle to Pathankot Vehicleades Pvt.Ltd. at Village Babri, Gurdaspur on the same day. The opposite parties completed all the formalities at the time of examining the vehicle and the said vehicle remained in the workshop of Pathankot Vehicleades Pvt.Ltd. w.e.f. 8.7.2014 to 13.7.2014 and was repaired there. She has further pleaded that she paid the net amount of Rs.29,447/- to the Pathankot Vehicleades Pvt.Ltd. Vide bill/cash memo no.BC14000126 dated 13.7.2014. She approached the opposite parties for the refund of amount incurred by her through aforesaid bill but it did not pay any amount. She visited the office of the opposite parties at Gurdaspur but they did not pay any heed to her request. Ultimately, the opposite parties issued letter through which they demanded more money to consider the claim. She deposited the amount as demanded by the opposite parties but now the opposite parties have refused to release the claim amount due to the conduct and behaviour of the opposite parties she felt humiliated and suffered from the mental agony and tension. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, forcing the complainant to file the present complaint with the aforesaid relief duly prayed herein above.

3.         Upon notice, the opposite parties insurer appeared through its counsel and filed their written version taking the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has filed the complaint against the terms and conditions of the policy and G.R. 27 of the India Motor Tariff as complainant suppressed the material facts in the proposal form at the time of taking the policy.; the complaint is without any cause of action, hence liable to be dismissed. The complaint is absolutely false, frivolous. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant intimated the opposite party in respect of accident of insured vehicle No.PB-06-V-6969 on 8.7.2014 and the opposite party deputed Vikas Mahajan Surveyor & Loss Assessor Gurdaspur to Assess Loss of vehicle. The surveyor assessed a loss of Rs.26,700/- subject to collection of salvage of old parts.  It has been further submitted that at the time of settling the claim of the complainant it has come to the knowledge of opposite parties that the claim of complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has filed this complaint against the terms and conditions of the policy and G.R. 27 of the India Motor Tariff as complainant suppressed the material facts in the proposal form at the time of taking the policy. The complainant while taking the insurance policy stated that NO CLAIM occured during previous insurance policy period and taken NO CLAIM BONUS from the opposite party. Now it has been confirmed that there is claim reported under the previous year policy no.351010311136133072576 expired on 23.04.2014. The complainant took a claim of Rs.13,000/- on 21.12.2013 vide claim no.35101031136192217061 in respect to accidental loss of vehicle no.PB-06-V-6969 in the name of complainant during the previous insurance period from the opposite parties. It has been next submitted that the complainant suppressed material information from the opposite party about taking claim previously at the time of taking the policy from National Insurance Company. The opposite party written a letter dated 28.8.2014 to complainant to clarify within 7 days about receiving claim of Rs.13,000/- on 21.12.2013 vide claim no.3510103116192217061 in respect to accidental loss of vehicle. The complainant did not respond to the letter of the opposite parties and opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on the grounds of suppression of material facts. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.           Complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.CI, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C2 to Ex C5 and closed the evidence.

5.         On the other hand, Sh.Parveen Chadha, Branch Manager of the opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith the other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.         We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the impugned claim has been repudiated in the light of GR 27 of the India Motor Tariff General Rules. It has been alleged Ex.OP1 that at the time of purchase of the related Policy, the complainant had knowingly suppressed the fact of the ‘previous-policy claim’ and has thus availed of deduction of ‘no claim bonus’ from its ‘premium-amount’. Although, the amount of ‘no claim bonus’ stood duly recovered Ex.OP2 & Ex.OP3 but the OP insurers were still reluctant to settle the impugned claim so as to let the complainant avail of the benefits of the present Policy. We find that the OP insurers have simply alleged the ‘suppression’ of material fact upon the complainant but have failed to produce any ‘cogent evidence’ in support of the same. The related ‘proposal form’ finds a mention but has not been produced for the reasons best known to the OP insurers, only. Moreover, the previous insurers were the OP Co. itself and any claim availed of the previous policy was very much in its knowledge and/ or within its reach rather only a ‘click’ away on its own computer-network. But, the OP Co. failed to confirm/ tally the ‘facts’ with the available information and renewed the Policy to its convenience/ comfort. The opposite party has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble National commission, New Delhi ‘Inder Pal Rana Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Revision Petition No.4470 of 2014’ but the facts of this citation are not applicable in the present case as in that case the complaint was filed against NIC but the previous insurance was from some different insurance company i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. and in that case GR 27 of India motor tariff was perhaps applicable. But in the present complaint before us the previous insurers were the OP Company itself. Moreover it is evident from the extract clause (f) of the GR 27 of India motor tariff that the insurer was also duty bound to write to the previous insurer, within 21 days, after granting the cover for confirmation of the entitlement and rate of no claim bonus. Since the policy had been issued by the Ops in respect of the vehicle in question in favour of the complainant, it was their duty to obtain the information, as to whether , any claim had been obtained by the complainant in respect of the policy of the previous year, within 21 days but it failed to do so. We are not inclined to accept the logic as put forth by the OP insurers and conclude that the complainant’s consumer rights as envisaged under the Act have indeed been bruised and deserve redressal as per the extant provisions of the same.           

8.       In the light of the all above, we partly accept the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to settle and pay the ‘insurance claim’ pertaining to related Policy in question as per the surveyor report dated 18.07.2014, alongwith Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the undue harassment inflicted besides Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation; within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders, otherwise the entire awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9 % PA form the date of filing of the complaint till actually paid.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

      (Naveen Puri)

                                                                          President   

Announced:                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)

July 14, 2015                                                  Member

*MK*