Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 57.

                                                                   Instituted on     : 06.02.2018.

                                                                   Decided on       : 21.11.2019.

Sandeep, aged 41 years son of Shri Mahender Singh, resident of House No.342, Devi Nagar, Ward no.1, Gohana District Sonepat.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, D-Park, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

                   MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Dharmender Singh Saiwal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of LMV Car Hundai CRETA bearing registration No. HR-11J-8296, and the same was insured with the respondent vide policy No. 35380031170300002368. The car in question was hypothecated with HDFC Bank Ltd. On 29.10.2017, the car in question had met with an accident when the complainant was driving his car in normal speed.  But there was no any third party loss and nobody injured in this incident. The complainant informed the opposite party within time and respondent appointed surveyor, who duly got inspected the damaged car at the spot. The surveyor allowed the complainant to repair the vehicle and the complainant got repaired the car and paid Rs.115119/- as repair charges. The complainant met with the opposite party so many times to get the claim amount but the same was not paid to him despite his repeated requests. That the act of opposite party is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such, it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of its accrual till actual realization and also to pay the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment as well as Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that complainant has availed 20% NCB in our policy no. 35380031170300002368 at the time of renewal from the New India Assurance Company Ltd. against previous policy no.HSB/41274 of SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. but on verification, it was observed that complainant has taken claim in previous policy of SBI General Insurance company which is misrepresentation of fact and breach of utmost good faith, which also results into violation of 64 VB and condition no.8 of the Motor Insurance Policy. The complainant is not entitled to get any claim amount from the respondent as he concealed the true facts from the OP and wrongly and malafidely obtained 20% NBC from the respondent in the present policy. The respondent appointed Surveyor Shri Pankaj Rohilla to assess the loss of the vehicle in question and he has inspected the same and assessed the loss of Rs.1,09,508/- and the surveyor submitted his report without prejudice but the same was only payable subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency of services on the part of the OP and dismissal of complaint has been sought.  

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 24.12.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on dated 12.09.2019.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the complainant had concealed the fact of availing claim on his previous policy and has availed the benefit of NCB 20% in the present policy for which he was not entitled. To prove its contention, opposite party has placed on record copy of NCB confirmation report Ex.R3 alongwith copy of policy Ex.R4. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has pleaded that complainant is not entitled for any claim as he has got benefit of NCB by misrepresentation to the opposite party and has placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid-down in 2015(2)CLT 107(NC) titled as Inder Pal Rana Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd.

6.                          On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that merely availing of NCB does not disentitle the complainant from the whole claim amount. Ld. counsel has also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi laid down in 2018(2)CLT 89 in Revision Petition No.1051 of 2017 titled as Anjani Gupta Vs. Future Generally India Insurance Company whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that : “If no Claim Bonus is wrongfully taken by the insured, the claim would still be payable on a non-standard basis”. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances, it is observed that the repudiation of whole claim by the opposite party on the ground of availing the benefit of NCB is illegal and as such complainant is entitled for the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor  as per his report Ex.R5  i.e. Rs.109508/- on non-standard basis after deduction of 25% claim amount i.e. Rs.109508/- less 25% for non-standard claim i.e. Rs.82131/- However, law cited above by ld. counsel for the opposite party is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7.                In view of the above, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.82131/-(Rupees eighty two thousand one hundred thirty one only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.06.02.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.  

8.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

21.11.2019.

                                                          …………………………………..

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          …...........................................

                                                          Renu Chaudhary, Member.                               

                                                                        ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.