Complainant Jaswant Singh vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,80,950/- for repair which is mentioned in the bill towards as damages of the vehicle alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses/costs to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he got a policy from the opposite parties vide policy No.401502/31/13/6300006016 on 25.9.2013 which was issued on 26.9.2013 for the vehicle Mahindra Navistar 3118 TC open truck bearing registration no.PB-06-Q-7075. On, 5.4.2014 at about 8 PM the vehicle reached at Majitha Road was damaged. After this damage, the vehicle was repaired from Pathankot and an amount of Rs.1,80.950/- was paid vide repair bill no.268. He requested the opposite parties for the payment of repair charges but the opposite parties lingering on the matter with one pretext or the other and flatly refused to pay his claim. The opposite parties are harassing him without any cause or excuse. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties insurer appeared through their 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 this complaint against the terms and conditions of the Insurance 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 and the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant intimated the opposite party in respect of accident of insured vehicle Mahindra Navistar Tipper No.PB-06-Q-7075 on 5.4.2014 and the opposite party deputed Munish Kr.Mahajan Valuer, Surveyor & Loss Assessor Batala Road, Amritsar for Motor (Spot) Survey Report. The abovesaid Munish Kr.Mahajan Surveyor submitted his Motor (Spot) Survey Report on 25.4.2014. Thereafter the opposite party deputed H.S.Bawa’s Surveyor & Loss Assessor Dhangu Road, Pathankot for assessing the loss to the vehicle. H.S.Bawa’s Surveyor & Loss Assessor Dhangu Road, Pathankot submitted his report on 8.9.2014 assessing the net value of the loss assessed Rs.1,67,412/-. At the time of settling the claim of the complainant it has come to the knowledge of opposite parties that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has filed this complaint against the terms and conditions of the policy and G.R. 27of 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 occurred during previous insurance policy period and taken NO CLAIM BONUS from the opposite party. Now it has confirmed that there is a claim paid to the complainant of Rs.70073/- reported under the previous year policy no.313000188104 valid from 26.09.2012 to 25.09.2013 issued by the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. From the abovementioned facts it is clear that complainant suppressed material information from the opposite party about taking claim previously at the time of taking the policy from National Insurance Company. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has miserably failed to disclose deficiency, if any, in the services of the opposite parties. Thereafter the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its registered letter dated 15.01.2015 on the ground of suppression of material facts. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-I along with the other documents exhibited as Ex.C2 to Ex C5 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, Sh.Parveen Chadda Br. Manager of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith the other documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP10 and closed the evidence.
6. From the pleadings and evidence on record we find that complainant got his vehicle insured with opposite party vide policy No.401502/31/13/6300006016. The said vehicle met with accident on 5.4.2014 and the same was got repaired by the complainant and Rs.1,80,450/- were spent on it by the complainant. He requested the opposite party for the payment of repair charges but opposite parties have refused to pay his claim.
7. A perusal of the reply to the complaint indicates the opposite parties have taken main plea that the petitioner deliberately suppressed material facts about the previous claims made by him. The complainant while taking the insurance policy stated that NO Claim occurred during previous insurance policy and has taken NO Claim Bonus from the opposite parties. It stands proved on record that a claim of Rs.70,073/- was paid to the complainant under the previous year policy no.313000188104 by the Reliance General Insurance Company.
8. The opposite parties had accepted the proposal form on bonafide belief that the information given in the proposal form was correct. The assured was under solemn obligation to make full disclosure of material facts which could be relevant for taking a decision by the new insurer to issue fresh insurance policy. It is clear from these facts that the complainant suppressed material information from the opposite party about taking claim previously from Reliance General Insurance Company.
9. In the light of all above, we do not find any merit in this complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall no orders as to costs.
10. 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)
November 18, 2015 Member
*MK*
