Complainant Varun Rana through the present complaint has sought the necessary directions to the opposite party namely National Insurance Co., Gurdaspur through its Branch Manager to pay  the insured value of Rs.7,03,000/- for the vehicle in question alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. till the realization of the claim. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for  mental pressure, distress of mind as well as body and disturbance in his married life alongwith Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he owned Volkswagen Polo bearing registration No.PB-06-AB-2239 Engine No.CFW411807 Chassis No.WVWJ13608ET023669. On 3 Jan 2015 his car was driven by one of his friend namely Simran Singh son of Sh.Badev Singh Thakur as he had some personal work at Jammu and he took his car for that purpose. On his return journey the car in question met with an accident on Jhakolarhi Flyover at about 6.00 PM due to dense fog at that time. No serious injury was caused to the driver but his car got severely damaged in that accident. After the accident he took the damaged car to Volkswagen agency Pathankot. They informed the opposite parties about the accident and the opposite party appointed their authorized surveyor who visited the Volkswagen Workshop and assessed the damages and on the instruction of surveyor he alongwith his above named friend lodged the complaint at police station Kanwa vide DDR No.09 dated 8.1.2015. The car was declared total damaged by the surveyor and claim was filed vide claim No.4015231146190000329. The Ex-showroom price of car in question at that time of purchase was around Rs.7,41,000/-.He approached the office of the insurance company at Gurdaspur and their Regional Office at Pathankot in person and also contacted on phone so many times to get the cheque of insured amount but only got one excuse over the other. He has further pleaded that after four months of the accident the insurance company tried to bargain the insured amount with him and pressurized him to agree to settle the claim amount at Rs.6,74,000/- on wrong grounds and against their policy of insurance which covered the accidental vehicle in question for Rs.7,03,000/- during this time  he was assured by the concerned Branch Manager of Gurdaspur that he will get Rs.1,50,000/- in cash and remaining amount through cheque  as company had auctioned the accidental car for amount of Rs.1,50,000/- but the accidental car is still parked in the premises of Volkswagen Pathankot and not auctioned. The Volkswagen Pathankot is also imposing parking charges which has to be paid at the time of the final settlement so, the delay of each and every day causing monitory loss to him. He has next pleaded that his car was financed by Bank of Maharashtra so he is liable to deposit monthly installments in the  Bank, but due to the act and conduct of the opposite party, he got so disturbed and remain under severe mental stress and pain and due to the wrong assurances given by the opposite party he did not deposit the monthly installments under the impression that he will permanently settle the loan amount by depositing the whole lump sum amount in the bank after getting the insured amount. The act and conduct of the opposite parties are tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice n the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.         Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written version through its counsel, taking the preliminary objection that the complainant by playing fraud and mis-statement tried to get compensation from the opposite party by misleading the insurer as well as this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant concealed the material facts regarding date of loss duly violated the principle of insurance utmost good faith and not entitled to any relief from this Forum;  the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant had filed the complaint against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; the vehicle Volkswagen Polo bearing no.PB-35S (Temp.) 9322 Engine No.CFW411807 Chassis No.WVWJ13608ET023669 was without any registration certificate at the time of accident on 21.12.2014. This vehicle was granted a temporary registration number upto 14.2.2014. The period of temporary registration certificate of the vehicle had expired on 14.2.2014 and the complainant has not applied for permanent registration till 26.12.2014. The insured vehicle was without Registration Certificate for a period of 11 months.  The complainant got prepared the registration certificate of the vehicle Volkswagen Polo in connivance with DTO Gurdaspur without physical verification of the vehicle after the accident on 21.12.2014 which is violation of the Motor Vehicle Act. At the time of accident the vehicle was being driven without any registration, which is prohibited under section 39 of The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and is also an offense under section 192 of the said Act but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy contract. The damaged vehicle, although insured, is not entitled to claim indemnification under the insurance policy. The opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant on 6.10.2015 as per terms and conditions of the policy and duly intimated the complainant and the complaint filed by the complainant is also not maintainable as the complainant deliberately suppressed the material facts in respect of date of alleged accident. The complainant in his complaint, DDR, claim form as well as in his intimation letter to the opposite party disclosed the date of accident as 3.01.2015.  After intimation by the complainant on 7 January 2015 in respect to alleged accident on 03.01.2015 the opposite party appointed H.S.Bawa Surveyor and Loss Assessor Dhangu Road, Pathankot, who has submitted his report on 3.02.2015 and assessed Rs.5,94,028/- as a net value of loss. The opposite party also appointed S.A. Investing & Consulting Agency Pathankot who has submitted its detailed report on 07.07.2015 and also Addendum to the investigation Report of accident to disputed vehicle on 12.08.2015 and information regarding RTI Act 2005 from National Highways Authority of India Jalandhar on 23.09.2015 to the opposite party. The S.A. Investigating & Consulting Agency Pathankot disclosed in its report that the vehicle  has met with an accident on 21.12.2014 at 7.37 P.M. Near Jhakholahri 2 Kms towards Pathankot side from Ladpalwan Toll Post on the left side of the road. So the loss was not co-related as per history of accident stated by the complainant in his complaint, DDR, claim form as well as in his intimation letter. It was further submitted that as per report of S.A. Investigating & Consulting Agency Pathankot based upon the certificate issued by the Excise & Texation Officer Toll Post Lakhanpur vehicle had not crossed the Toll Post Lakhanpur on 03.01.2015 as per computer record. No Spot Survey was done in this case due to non intimation of alleged accident by the complainant shows the malafide of the complainant. The cause of accident as stated by the complainant is that the vehicle hit with the divider of road, which is always on the right side of the vehicle but the damages and impact are on the left side of the vehicle also show the Malafide of the complainant. The estimates of vehicle loss produced by the complainant are manually prepared, whereas in the present time all the dealerships have gone online also shows the Malafide of the complainant. Infact the complainant Varun Rana has hatched a criminal conspiracy by playing the fraud and mis-statement to take pecuniary advantage from the opposite party by getting prepared the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in connivance with DTO Gurdaspur without physical verification of the vehicle after the accident on 21.12.2014. The complainant has also arranged fraudulently DDR no.9 dated 08.01.2015 in connivance with Police officials of Police Station Kanwan without following proper legal procedure. So all these facts proved the malafide intention of the complainant; the complaint is without any cause of action, hence liable to be dismissed. On merits also, the same pleadings have been repeated and dismissal of the complaint again prayed.

4.                Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit ExC1 and of affidavit of Sh.Simran Singh son of B.S.Thakur Ex.C10, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex.C2 to Ex C9 and closed the evidence.

5.        On the other hand, the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sarv Daman Bhalla of M/s.S.A. Investigating & Consulting Agency, Ashiana Ex.OP1   and of Sh.Parveen Chadha Branch Manager of opposite party Ex.OP-6 alongwith the other document exhibited as Ex.OP2 to OP5, Ex.OP7 to Ex.OP-9 and closed the evidence.

6.         We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the points of law and have also thoroughly examined the documents/evidence as produced on records with the requisite care & caution on the points of fact, in order to determine the points of dispute comprising the present complaint. We find that the OP insurers disallowed the impugned Car Accident Insurance Claim vide its repudiation letter of 06.10.2015 on account of ‘violation’ of basic term of ‘Uberaba Fides’ of the insurance contract through ‘misrepresentation’ of factual(s) pertaining to the insured Car’s ‘registration status’ at the time of accident and its reported ‘date’ of road-accident etc. The complainant could not prove his alleged ‘date of accident’ reported at 03.01.2015 through some cogently acceptable ‘evidence’. The complainant produced DDR exhibited as Ex.C2 is dated at 08.01.2015 (i.e., with an ‘unexplained’ delay of 5 days) and with no mention of the Car’s Registration Number and other necessary details etc. The DDR reports that the ‘insured’ Car (in question) was coming back from Jammu on 03.01.2015 when it met with an accident but the records at Toll Post Lakhanpur does not confirm the alleged ‘up/down’ journey of the Car on 03.01.2015. However, in reply to the RTI query (Ex.OP4) the National Highway Authority of India has confirmed that the Car in question had met with ‘accident’ on 21.12.2014 at 07:37 PM (near Jhakholahri 2 km towards Pathankot) and that disproves the complainant’s claim of accident taking place on 03.01.2015. Further, the Car’s RC indicates its mfg. date as: 11/2013 but date of registration as: 27.12.2014 showing that the ‘Car’ was not ‘registered’ on the actual date of accident (21.12.2014) and continued to be plied without ‘registration’ at the expiry of its temporary registration on 14.02.2014 till the permanent registration w e f 27.12.2014; in clear violation of the statutory provisions and the insurance policy terms. Thus, we find that the complainant had intentionally ‘misrepresented’ the date of ‘accident’ at 03.01.2015 from its actual date of accident i.e., 21.12.2014 since the car was not ‘registered’ with the competent ‘transport’ authorities at that point of time (of accident) and thus the OP insurers are justified in repudiating the insurance claim in terms of the insurance policy contract.            

7.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP insurers have righteously repudiated the insurance claim on account of the falsified information contained therein and thus ORDER for the dismissal of the present complaint with however no orders as to its costs.   

8.       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)

April, 06 2016.                                                       Member

*MK*