| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA RBT/Consumer Complaint No.443of 2018 Date of institution: 16.07.2018 Date of Decision: 25.04.2022 Amandeep Singh, aged about 28 years son of S. Balbir Singh, resident of House No.465,VillageBhattian, District Ludhiana. ….Complainant Versus - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, CBO-V, 146, Industrial Area-A, Opposite Allahabad Bank, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Manager
- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Oriental House, A25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, through its Director/M.D./G.M
……..Opposite Parties Complaint under Consumer Protection Act Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President. Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member Present: Sh. Anshu Gupta, Advocate, for complainant Sh. B.S. Rampal, Advocate, for OPs
Order dictated by :- Shri Ranjit Singh, President Order The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle i.e. Car make Maruti Alto LXI, bearing registration No.PB-10-FH-8333, Engine No.5181698 Chassis No.397240 model 2014. Earlier, the complainant had got insured the said vehicle from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, which was valid from 29.09.2015 to 26.09.2016. The complainant had claimed the benefit of insurance policy during that policy. Subsequently, in the month of September, 2016, the officials of the opposite parties approached him with the offer to obtain the insurance policy in respect of his above said vehicle from the opposite parties. The complainant had told the representative of the opposite parties that the complainant was earlier availing the insurance policy from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and he had also availed the claim/benefit of the policy from that insurance company. Thereafter, after making the calculation, the officials of the opposite parties told him that in case the complainant avails the service of the opposite parties, then he will have to pay Rs.6995/- as premium of the insurance policy. Lastly, the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties and get insured the vehicle from the Ops vide insurance policy No.CHD-D 144936, policy No.233905/31/2017/6694 dated 07.10.2016 w.e.f. 8.10.2016 to 07.10.2017. The complainant put his signatures on dictated places. It is further averred that in the first week of September 2017, the vehicle of the complainant again met with an accident and he lodged a claim with the opposite parties, which was approved by the opposite parties without any objection. However, as ill luck would have, thereafter, again on 28.9.2017, the vehicle of the complainant again met with an accident and thereafter again the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties, whereby, the surveyor of the opposite parties visited Stan Auto, where the vehicle was placed for repairs and the said surveyor prepared the report of total damage but the opposite parties was repudiated the claim of the complainant whereas the opposite parties are legally bound and liable to make the payment of the claim amount to him since the vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident during the period of insurance cover. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 11.5.2018 to the opposite parties. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:- - To pay the claim amount of Rs.2,10,000/-
- To pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
- To pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses
- Any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant may be found entitled under the circumstances of the present complaint may also be granted.
- Upon notice, the learned counsel for the OPs appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objection; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Commission with the clean hands; that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing this complaint; that the complaint is also bad for mis joinder of the necessary parties; that the complaint is false, frivolous and this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; that the services have been rendered in this case and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; that the insurance policy is a contract in itself and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. On merits, it is stated that complainant already received claim under previous policy. The complainant has not disclosed that earlier he has availing the services of the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. It is admitted that during the period of insurance cover the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident in the First week of September 2017 and the complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties but the said claim was not approved by the opposite parties. The complainant obtaining the policy without saying the true and correct facts. Vide letter dated 27.10.2017, the opposite parties asked for a clarification from the complainant regarding that he have given wrong declaration of No Claim Bonus and he have availed 25% No Claim Bonus on his policy and has taken the claim on his previous insurance policy. The complainant gave no reply regarding this fact. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant have been denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint with cost.
- In support of this claim the complainant has tendered various documents and on the other hand, the opposite parties have also tendered certain documents in support of his version.
- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
- In support of his claim, the learned counsel for the complainant has filed an affidavit of complainant Ex.CA. Copy of registration certificate Ex.C1, copy of insurance policies Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, copy of vehicle history Ex.C5 and other various documents Ex.C6 to Ex.C9. The learned counsel for the OP has filed an affidavit of Sukwhinder Singh, Sr. Divisional Manager as Ex.RA along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9.
- After going through the material available on the case file, we have no hitch to say that complainant has not been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence. It is a settled principle of law that he who seeks equity must do equity with the others but in the present case in hand, the complainant himself has breached the policy conditions and on the other hand approached to this Commission. It is important to mention here that from the perusal of the document Ex.C4, which is exhibited by the complainant, which clearly shows that the complainant has already availed No Claim Bonus benefit of 25%. Wrong declaration made by the complainant makes him dis-entitle for any claim/compensation as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Inderpal Rana Vs National Insurance.
- It is pertinent to mention here that the contracts of insurance are based on the doctrine of Ubberrima-fides i.e. utmost good faith. The person, obtaining the insurance policy, is required to disclose all the material information in his knowledge, which may affect the mind of the insurer, to accept or reject the proposal made for the insurance. It is very much clear from the contents of the proposal form itself, that in case any information furnished by the complainant was found to be false, all the benefits under the insurance policy were to be forfeited. It is now well settled that the contracts of the insurance are to be construed strictly. The facts were similar in TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs Gulzari Singh (2010)(2) CPJ (NC) 272. In that case also, the insurance policy regarding the vehicle was obtained by suppressing the material facts regarding making of claims under the previous insurance policy and by giving wrong declaration regarding “No Claim Bonus”. By relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 357 (LIC of India Vs G.M. Channabasamma) wherein it was held that a contract of insurance is a contract of Uberrima-Fides and there must be complete good faith on the part of the assured and the assured is under a solemn obligation to make full disclosure of material facts which may be relevant for insurer to take into an account the claim of the complainant was disallowed by the Hon’ble National Commission. In view of the ratio of those above said judgments, it is to be held that the opposite parties were justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant, on the ground of obtaining the “No Claim Bonus” by concealing the material facts, rendering the contract of insurance void ab initio.
- Hence, in view of the above discussed factual as well as legal position, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. There is not order as to cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
(RANJIT SINGH)
PRESIDENT (RANVIR KAUR) MEMBER CC No.443of 2018 Sh. B.S. Rampal, Adv. for OPs Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands dismissed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room. April,25 2022 (Ranjit Singh) (Ranvir Kaur) | |
