BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.438 of 2016

Date of Instt. 19.10.2016

Date of Decision: 14.11.2017

Kulwant Singh aged about 53 years S/o Sohan Singh R/o Ward No.11, Mohalla Dashmesh Nagar, Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., having registered office at No.3 Middleton Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071, through its Managing Director/Authorized Officer.

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Nurmahal Road, Nakodar through its Branch Manager.

..….…Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Ms. Niti Kumari, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. RS Arora, Adv Counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP No.1 is an insurance company and is offering insurances services throughout India including the State of Punjab and have different branches throughout India and OP No.2 is its Branch at Nakodar, District Jalandhar, Punjab and the complainant is a consumer of the OP No.1 and 2 and availed services of insurance policy No.40430231166100000681 with respect to vehicle No.PB-19-E7676 as the complainant is owner of the same. The vehicle had been comprehensively insured with the OP No.1 and 2 and as such OP No.1 and 2 were required to meet all the claims and liabilities arising from the use of the above said vehicle in future.

2. That subsequently, on 25.06.2016, the above said vehicle, met with an accident, the above said vehicle had been badly damaged. Thereafter, the complainant informed the OP No.2 about the accident and a claim No.40430231166190000078 was given to the complainant. At the request of OP No.2, the complainant parked the vehicle in motor repair workshop for necessary repairs or assessment of damage etc. The complainant was told by officials of OP No.2 that a surveyor will survey the vehicle and compensation/expenses of repairs will be awarded only after the assessment of loss and damage by the company surveyor. They also assured the complainant that the accident claim will be granted within a short period. However, vide letter dated 22.08.2016, the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant without any valid and legal reason and without any providing opportunity of being heard on the ground of NCB while renewing the insurance policy. Even, thereafter the complainant contacted the OPs number of times, but every time they refused to listen to the complainant on one pretext or the other. Because of the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental tension, agony and harassment, the complainant now has got effected necessary repairs of the vehicle and paid the entire bill amount from his own pocket. However, the OPs have not entertained the claim of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OP amounts to monopolistic tendencies, deficiency in services and is an unfair trade practice of which the complainant is victim and as such, the instant complaint was filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to entertain the claim of the complainant as per the bills already submitted and further requested to direct the OPs to pay compensation for inconvenience, harassment, physically and traveling expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant was rightly denied the claim on the ground that while obtaining insurance from the OP, he had concealed having obtained 'No Claim Bonus' in the previous policy from his erstwhile insurer United India Insurance Co. It is further submitted that the repudiation in the instant case was proper and valid with elaborate and speaking letter that the complainant concealed the critical fact from the OP, therefore, no complaint lies, only the Civil Court could adjudicate over the controversy raised by the complainant. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of insurance policy as well as submitting of accident claim of the vehicle and repudiation of the said claim is admitted by the OPs, but the remaining allegations as leveled in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurwinder Kaur, Deputy Manager as Ex.OP/A alongwith document Copy of Proposal Form as Ex.OP/1 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. The factum in regard to purchase of insurance policy of the vehicle PB-19-E7676, by the complainant from the OP for a period 01.05.2016 to 30.04.2017 for an IDV of vehicle Rs.4,00,000/-, an insurance cover was issued by the OP, the same is Ex.C2 and further the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 25.06.2016 and accordingly, the complainant submitted a claim, which was repudiated by the OP, vide letter dated 22.08.2016 Ex.C1, upto this extent, the facts are not in dispute rather these are admitted.

8. The controversy in this case is only that the vehicle damages insurance claim of the complainant was repudiated, vide letter dated 22.08.2016, Ex.C1, on the ground that the complainant has concealed the real facts from the OP at the time of inception of insurance policy in regard to taking NCB in a previous/erstwhile insurance policy, whereas as per version of the OP, the complainant has got a claim from the previous insurer and by concealing this fact, the complainant has claimed a bonus @ 25% amounting to Rs.2700/- from the OP, at the time of getting insurance policy of the vehicle. Whenever, the factum in regard to getting claim from previous insurer is concealed, then as per Section-1 the policy would stand forfeited and to give a strength to this submission, the learned counsel for the OP made a reliance upon a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2015(2) CLT 107, title “Inder Pal Rana Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.”.

9. We have gone through the aforesaid judgment and find that in the instant case, the OP has brought on the file only two documents i.e. one affidavit of Gurwinder Kaur, Deputy Manager of Insurance Company as Ex.OP/A and proposal form/declaration Ex.OP/1, no doubt in column No.11 Part 'C', the complainant has given declaration that he has not lodged any claim under the previous policy, to this effect the factum is admitted. Now, it is the duty of the OP to prove and establish on the file whether in reality the complainant has obtained any claim from the previous policy, for that purpose, the record of the erstwhile insurance company is to be summoned by the OP. In order to establish that the complainant has got a claim from previous policy, if so, to what extent but no such type of evidence has been come on the file and in the absence of this type of evidence, it is not justify to accept the oral version of the OP that the complainant has obtained a claim in the previous policy from his erstwhile insurance company i.e. United India Insurance Company. So, from this angle, the OP has illegally, wrongly and without any proof repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 22.08.2016 and accordingly, the same is setaside and further, the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the OPs (Supra) 2015(2) CLT 107, title “Inder Pal Rana Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” is not applicable in the present case being the facts of that judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission having not identical facts to the case in hand and further hold that the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed in the Prayer Clause.

10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to entertain the claim of the complainant as per the bills already submitted and further OPs are directed to pay compensation for inconvenience, mental tension and harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

14.11.2017 Member President