ORDER                                    Dated:  27-01-2017

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. The complainant has filed this complaint on 24-11-2014 and alleged that he is the owner of vehicle bearing no. DL 8C W 1746 and the same was insured by OP2 vide policy no. 36080131116100005367 valid from 26.03.2012 to 25.03.2013 for an IDV of Rs. 5,36,640/-.  On 15.03.2013 at about 12.00-12.15 A.M. the insured vehicle was stolen from his house and FIR  no. 76/2013 dated 15.03.2013 was  lodged in this regard at P.S.  Ashok Vihar. Complainant filed theft claim with OPs but despite reimbursing the theft amount , OP1 sent a letter dated 12.08.2013 to the complainant informing therein that he is not entitled for theft claim as he has misrepresented at the time of declaration as having no claim at the time of the policy.  Complainant again sent a letter dated 01.03.2014  to OPs but OPs did not clear the theft claim of the complainant.  Complainant sent a legal notice dated 25.06.2014 but despite receipt of the said notice , OPs again failed to reimburse the claim of the complainant and did not reply the same. Hence  there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant prayed to direct OPs  to pay a sum of Rs. 5,36,640/- towards insured amount along with interest @ 24% p.a. and a compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental pain , agony and harassment.
2. In reply ,OPs admitted that vehicle of the complainant was insured with OPs and did not deny the theft of the vehicle on 15.03.2013 and its FIR but objected that complainant has fraudulently not informed the OPs  regarding the claim being settled by the previous insurer and has availed ‘No Claim Bonus’ fraudulently. OPs  also objected that the complainant has  obtained the insurance policy by concealment of facts and obtained 20 % discount on the premium therefore contract obtained by the fraud is void ab-initio. Hence they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
3. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement and denied that he has concealed the material facts and supported his complaint.
4. In support of  his complaint complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents i.e. copy R.C.  (Ex. CW-1/1) , copy of FIR (Ex. CW-1/2)  , copy of insurance policy (Ex. CW-1/3), copy of letter and reply (Ex. CW1/4) and (Ex. CW1/5), copy of notice (Ex. CW1/6), postal receipt (Ex. CW-1/7) , copy of A.D. card (Ex. CW-1/8).
5.  In support of reply OPs filed affidavit of Surender Rai, Admn. officer  along with documents i.e. copy of proposal form (Ex. R-1), copy of statement of claim (Ex. R-2), copy of repudiation letter (Ex. R-3), copyof insurance policy along with terms and conditions (Ex. R-4) (colly), copy of letter issued by OPs dated 12.08.2013 and letter issued by complainant to OPs (Ex. R-5) and (Ex. R-6) respectively, copy of reply to the legal notice (Ex. R7) , copy of policy issued by ICICI Lombard gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. (Ex. R8).
6. Both the parties have filed their written arguments.
7. We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

1. Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

(c) Relief?

8.  OP in reply admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with OP therefore, complainant is a consumer.

9.  In evidence of the OP submitted proposal form of the complainant (Ex. R-1). It clarify that 20%  discount on the premium ( no claim bonus) was claimed by the complainant but it was the duty of the OPs to confirm the facts alleged in the proposal form  within the reasonable time thereafter to issue policy to the complainant.  It is also necessary to mention herein that the amount of 20 % of the premium ( No Claim Bonus) as well as the information of proposal form is written in different handwriting in comparison to the complainant’s signature. So there is a possibility that 20 % discount on no claim bonus was given to the complainant as an incentive. It is pertinent to mention herein that such alleged wrong facts in alleged   contract between the complainant and OP makes the contract voidable at the option of the insurer. When the insurer ignored these wrong facts and issued insurance policy of the complainant’s vehicle (Ex R-4/ CW1/3) with vehicle IDV Rs 5,36,640/-, insurer cannot raise the objection of alleged wrong facts in the proposal form after two years. Provision of section 149 (b) of the Motor Vehicle Act is not applicable in this case as letter dated 12.08.2013  of the OP (Ex.CW1/4 ) itself clarify that the contract was voidable at the option of the insurer. 

10. In this case theft of the complainant’s vehicle is not disputed. Insurance policy of the vehicle is not disputed therefore looking to the above facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that OPs wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Therefore we direct OPs as under:-

1. To make the payment of IDV value of the vehicle i.e. Rs. Rs 5,36,640/-  to the complainant.

2. To pay the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for mental agony.

3. To pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.

11. This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 10% shall be payable on the entire above mentioned amount from the date of this order till realization. 
12. Copy of this order made available to the parties as per law. File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on this   ………..