Haryana

StateCommission

A/716/2015

RAVI PARKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK VERMA

21 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      716 of 2015

Date of Institution:      01.09.2015

Date of Decision :       21.01.2016

 

Ravi Parkash s/o Sh. Duli Chand, Resident of 316, Biz Market, Pundri, District Kaithal.

                                      Appellant/complainant

Versus

1.      The New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO No.510/14, Pehowa Road, Govind Nagar, Kaithal, Haryana. 

2.      The New India Assurance Company Limited New India Assurance Building, 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Deepak Verma, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri B.S. Taunque, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of un-successful complainant is directed against the order dated 30^th July, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint No.159 of 2013 filed by him, was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the present case are that car bearing registration No.HR-08N/6871 of Ravi Parkash-complainant/appellant, was insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-opposite parties/respondents, for the period 31^st March, 2013 to 30^th March, 2014 vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-1.  The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.4,53,412/-. On May 5^th, 2013 the car met with an accident and damaged. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed Shri Mahesh Kalra, Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and submitted report Exhibit R-2 whereby he assessed the loss at Rs.63,900/-. The complainant got repaired the car. According to the complainant, he spent Rs.84,080/- on the repair of his car. Claim being filed, the Insurance Company repudiated the same vide letter Exhibit R-5 on the ground that during the subsistence of the previous policy, the complainant had obtained claim but he concealed this fact at the time of obtaining the insurance policy from the respondents/Insurance Company and wrongly took benefit of ‘No Claim Bonus’ (NCB) and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply reiterating the fact stated in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      It is not in dispute that the insured car of the complainant was damaged in an accident and the surveyor of the Insurance Company had assessed the loss at Rs.63,900/-. The ground on which the claim was denied is that the complainant had taken NCB at the time of obtaining the policy in question from the Insurance Company.

5.      The question for determination is as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant or not?

6.      To decide the issue, the provisions of GR.27 of the Indian Motor Tariff need to be taken into consideration which deal with NCB of the insured vehicle.

7.      As per GR.27 of the M.V. Act, the Insurance Company was under a legal obligation to collect information from the previous Insurance Company by writing letter within 21 days from the date on which the complainant had obtained the policy. The relevant part of GR.27 of the Indian Motor Tariff reads as under:-

          “GR.27. No Claim Bonus

1. No Claim Bonus (NCB) can be earned only in the Own Damage section of Policies covering all classes of vehicles but not on Motor Trade Policies (Road Transit Risks/Road Risk/Internal Risks) and policies which cover only Fire and/or Theft Risks. For policies covering Liability with Fire and/or Theft Risks, the NCB will be applicable only on the Fire and/or Theft components of the premium. An insured becomes entitled to NCB only at the renewal of a policy after the expiry of full duration of 12 months.
2. No Claim Bonus, wherever applicable, will be as per the following table.

Xxx

3. xxx
4. xxx
5. xxx
6. In the event of the insured, transferring his insurance from one insurer to another insurer, the transferee insurer may allow the same rate of NCB which the insured would have received from the previous insurer. Evidence of the insured’s NCB entitlement either in the form of a renewal notice or a letter confirming the NCB entitlement from the previous insurer will be required for this purpose.

Where the insured is unable to produce such evidence of NCB entitlement from the previous insurer, the claimed NCB may be permitted after obtaining from the insured a declaration as per the following wording.

“I/We declare that the rate of NCB claimed by me/us is correct and that no claim as arisen in the expiring policy period (copy of the policy enclosed). I/we further undertake that if this declaration is found to be incorrect, all benefits under the policy in respect of Section 1 of the Policy will stand forfeited.”

Notwithstanding the above declaration, the insurer allowing the NCB will be obliged to write to the policy issuing office of the previous insurer by recorded delivery calling for confirmation of the entitlement and rate of NCB for the particular insured and the previous insurer shall be obliged to provide the information sought within 30 days of receipt of the letter of enquiry failing which the matter will be treated as a breach of Tariff on the part of the previous insurer. Failure of the insurer granting the NCB to write to the previous insurer within 21 days after granting the cover will also constitute a breach of the Tariff.”

8.      Indisputably, in the case in hand the Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-1) was obtained by the complainant from the Insurance Company/respondents on 30^th March, 2013 and the policy was valid from March 31^st, 2013 to March 30^th, 2014. The accident took place on May 5^th, 2013, that is, after more than 36 days from the date of obtaining the policy. As per GR.27 of the Indian Motor Tariff, the insured can take benefit of ‘No Claim Bonus’ if he provides information that he had not taken any claim during the period of previous policy. However, if the insured does not furnish any such information, the Insurance Company can take declaration of the insured to the effect that no claim was taken by him during the subsistence of the previous policy and thereafter can collect information from the previous insurer by writing a letter within 21 days, failing which it will constitute a breach of the Tariff on the part of insurer and not insured.

9.      In this case the Insurance Company has failed to produce any evidence that any declaration was taken from the complainant at the time of issuing the policy and that any letter was written to the previous insurer within 21 days as mentioned above. Thus, the Insurance Company failed to adhere to the provisions of GR.27 of the Indian Motor Tariff and therefore cannot be absolved from its liability to pay the benefits of the insurance to the complainant. In the absence of any declaration, it cannot be said that the complainant misrepresented or intentionally gave false declaration. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the legal position mentioned above and erred in dismissing the complaint.

10.    Coming now to the question of quantum of the benefits of insurance to the complainant.  The surveyor in his report (Exhibit R-2) assessed the loss at Rs.63,900/-. Though the complainant alleges to have spent Rs.84,080/- on the repair of his car from Tata Motors, Karnal but he has not produced any representative of the said workshop to prove the bill Exhibit C-2. Merely by placing on record such a document, the report of the surveyor (Exhibit R-2) cannot be brushed aside which is an important document. Support to this view can be taken from the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507, wherein it was held as under:-

“There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them”.

11.    This case is squarely covered by Sri Venkateswara Syndicate’s case (Supra) because no cogent evidence has been produced by the complainant to rebut the report of the surveyor.

12.    For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and by allowing the complaint, the Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.63,900/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation.

 

 

Announced 21.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL