Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/541/2014

Meena Kanwar D/o Sh. Rajendra Singh Rajput - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rigional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Pramod Kumar

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:541 /2014

 

Meena Kanwar d/o Rajendra Singh r/o 69/403 Heera Path, Madhyam Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

Vs.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional office- Jeevan Nidhi, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Near LIC office, Jaipur through Regional Manager & ors.

 

 

Date of order 16.9.2015

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka-Member

 

Mr. Pramod Kumar counsel for the appellant

Mr.Rahul Joshi counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed

2

 

by the learned DCF Jaipur 2^nd dated 5.5.2014 by which it dismissed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant had taken an insurance for her vehicle from the respondent Insurance Company which was effective from 16.12.2011 to 15.12.2012. This vehicle met with an accident on 12.2.2012. A surveyor was appointed by the company to assess the loss who assessed the loss at Rs.41745.38. However, the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that at the time of taking insurance the complainant had made a false declaration in respect of “No claim bonus”. After the accident the respondent company had enquired from the previous insurance company Chola Mandalam MS General Insurance Co. who vide its letter dated May 18,2012 informed the respondent company that one claim was reported and settled during the policy. The learned DCF accepted the version of the respondent company and dismissed the complaint on the ground of false declaration made by the complainant in respect of “No claim bonus”.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant-appellant has drawn our attention to GR 27 of the Indian Motor Tariff which

3

 

states that it is incumbent upon the insurance company to write to the previous insurer and confirm the declaration made by the insured in respect of “No claim bonus”.

 

The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to condition no. 8 of the policy in which it was the duty of the insured to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy. On this point the learned counsel for the respondent has cited before us II (2013) CPJ 1 (SC) ( Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs.Garg Sons International) , (2010) 10 SCC 567 ( Surajmal Ramniwas Oil Mills P.Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.), (2010) 4 SCC 256 (Contship Container Lines Ltd. Vs. D.K.Lall & ors.). In these judgments it has been laid down that contract of insurance is founded on good faith and the duty of the court is to interpret the words used in the contract in the manner that will express intention of the parties.

 

We have heard both the counsels and have considered their arguments.

 

It is clear that the respondent company was obliged under GR 27 to write to the previous insurer and confirm the

4

 

entitlement of “No claim bonus”. In this case the respondent company after issuing the policy had not written to the previous insurer while it was obligatory for the respondent company to write to previous insurer within 21 days of granting the cover and the previous insurer was obliged to furnish the information within 30 days of the receipt of the letter. Thus, in this case the insurance company has constituted a breach of the tariff by not writing to the previous insurer. This policy was issued on 16.12.2011 and the respondent company was obliged to write within 21 days to the previous insurer. However, when a claim was reported under this policy the company wrote to the previous insurer who replied on 18.5.2012. At the same time the fact remains that the complainant too had made a wrong declaration in the proposal form in respect of “No claim bonus”. The learned DCF has relied on a judgment reported in II (2010) CPJ 272 (NC) ( Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Vs. Gulzari Singh). In this judgment the provisions of GR 27 were not discussed. Provisions under GR 27 binds the insurance company to confirm the declaration of the insured within 21 days.

 

In view of this we are of the view that it will not be just and proper for the insurance company to repudiate the whole

5

 

claim and we order that 75% of the amount assessed by the surveyor shall be paid to the complainant as non-standard claim. The appeal is partially accepted. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of this order.

 

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

nm