Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/815/2022

SAJID MUKHTAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

AAKASH SINGLA

14 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/815/2022
Date of Institution	:	19.9.2022
Date of Decision	:	14/5/2024

 

1. Sajid Mukhtar son of Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari.

2. Saad Ibrahim son of Sajid Mukhtar.

(Both partners of M/s MNS Industries and residents of 260, Old Tehsil, Behind Idgah, Kashipuri Chowk, Delhi Dehradun Road, Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar.

3.   MNS Industries, a partnership firm, through its Managing Partner Sajid Mukhtar son of Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari resident of 260, Old Tehsil, Behind Idgah, Kashipuri Chowk, Delhi Dehradun Road, Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar.

...Complainants

 

VERSUS

 

1. New India Assurance Company Limited, having its Registered Office at 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata Managing Director. 700071, through its Managing Director.

2. New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office-II, First Floor, SCO No. 91, 92, 93, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022, through Divisional Manager/Authorized Person.

3. M/s Krishna Automobiles, Plot No. 125, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 1060002 through its Managing  Partner/CEO/Authorized Person.

 

4. Sh. Vinod Bhan, Authorized Surveyor, New India Assurance Company Limited c/o Vinod Bhan and Associates, SCO No. 179- 80, Top Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

.  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Akash Singla, Advocate for complainants.
	:	Sh. Vaibhav Mittal, Advocate for OPs No.1&2.
	:	Sh. Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for OP No.3.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant got his  motorbike of make BMW,  insured from the OPs No.1&2 valid from 8.6.2020 to 2021. During the subsistence of the aforesaid policy on 26.7.2020, complainant no. 2 while riding his aforesaid bike met with an accident. The complainants took the vehicle to the authorized service centre on 27.7.2020. The complainants immediately informed the agents of the insurance company as they were available in the office premises of OP No. 3 and request was made to proceed with the repairs by invoking the cashless claim which was promised earlier. The complainants were supplied estimate confirmation dated 29.7.2020 by the office of OP No. 3 to the tune of Rs.13,91,016.56/-The authorized surveyor of the insurance company  namely Sh. Vinod Bhan/OP No. 4 surveyed the vehicle in the premises of OP No. 3 and estimated value of the repair work was worked out to be Rs. 15,40,604/- and oral approval was given to the aforesaid loss assessment made by the OP No. 4. Upon which the OP No. 3 promised the repair work. However the repair work was not started and completed for a long time asthe in-principle approval was not given by the insurance company. The complainants were shocked to receive a whatsapp message from Sh. Mandeep Dhiman wherein it was informed that claim by OP Nos. 1 and 2 (insurance company) has been approved to the tune of Rs.10,50,000/-, however despite repeated representations to the OP Nos. 1 to 3/their agents as to why complete claim has not been approved by the insurance company as the complainants had already taken NIL Depreciation Cover and Consumables Cover in addition to the comprehensive motor policy but no clear reply was given. The complainants repeatedly requested to the OP Nos. 1 to 3 to entertain the claim of the complainants strictly in terms of the insurance policy and the additional covers Annexure A-5 but the OPs forced the complainant to agree to the offer of Rs.10,50,000/- of the insurance company with an expectation that the bike would be repaired and delivered at the earliest. However to the utter shock of the  complainants the OPs 1&2 vide email dated 6.3.2021 informed the complainant that claim amount to the tune of ₹7,54,793/- has been approved and balance amount of ₹6,72,648/- demanded from the complainants on the ground that  that the complainants had allegedly claimed some amount in the policy year 2019-2020. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2  in their reply stated that while processing the insurance claim of the complainants, it came to the knowledge of the answering OPs that the insurance policy of the complainants is not as per standard conditions of issuing new insurance policy as the complainants have fraudulently availed the 25% of the premium amount as no claim bonus at the time of insurance by concealing the material fact that they have already preferred a claim on their previous insurer i.e., ICICI Lombard which was rejected by them for the reason best known to insured only and the complainants have never raised any dispute regarding that as per the record available.  Thus the answering Ops were cheated by the complainants by paying 25% less premium.  Moreover, the Claim of thecomplainants was never repudiated for concealment of material facts or breach of utmost good faith in the insurance contract which is basic requirement of insurance contract but rather was paid by deduction only in the proportion to which the answering Ops were put to loss by receiving less premium to the tune of 25%. Hence, the answering respondent has paid in proportion to the premium received by the company which is consented by the complainants.  Denying any deficiency on their part all other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. OP No.3  in its reply stated that the complaint is not maintainable against it as no specific deficiency in service alleged in the complaint.  It is merely a authorized dealership of the manufacturer and is duty bound for the after sale services and maintenance of the vehicle as per directions and payment of services either by the owner of the vehicle or manufacturer of the vehicle and the answering OP is only liable to undertake  the accidental repairs as per the direction either of insurance company or the owner of the vehicle.  Claiming no deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the compliant qua it has been made.
4. OP No.4 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 6.1.2023 it was proceeded against exparte.
5. No rejoinder filed.
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. The main grievance of the complainant is that  inspite of having proper insurance cover his legitimate claim was not paid in full as claimed, by the OPs No.1&2.
9. On perusal of the documents placed on record by OPs No.1&2, it is observed that the complainants have availed the 25% of the premium amount as no claim bonus at the time of insurance by concealing the material  fact that  they have already preferred a claim on their previous insurer i.e. ICICI Lombard which was rejected by them.
10. It is settled law that where the previous insurer confirms that there was a claim i.e., insured has taken NCB incorrectly, the OD claim amount shall be reduced proportionately as the percentage of NCB enjoyed by insured wrongfully. In this regard judgment of Hon'ble NCDRC in case Anjani Gupta v. Future Generally India Insurance Company RP no 1051 of 2017 dated 12.12.2017 is there.
11. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion the claim of the complainants has been rightly repudiated by the OPs No.1&2 and the complainant has failed to prove his case.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
14/05/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member