Haryana

Karnal

364/2010

Harinder Singh, Partner Of M/s National Auto Store - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Sahni

11 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                                Complaint No.364 of 2010

                                                                Date of instt.: 19.05.2010

                                                                Date of decision: 11.02.2016

 

Harinder Singh partner of M/s National Auto Store, 611, Transport Nagar, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

 

                             Versus

The Oriental  Insurance Company Ltd.Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.             

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-      Sh.Vijay Sahni Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Inderjeet Sachdeva Advocate for the Opposite party.

ORDER:                     

.  

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he got his car   bearing registration No. HR-05V-2637 insured  with the Opposite party vide cover note bearing No.005194 .The insurance policy was valid from  31.10.2008 to  30.10.2009 and the insured value was Rs.3.00 lac. On 17.3.2009 the car met with an accident  near  Toll Barrier, Panipat. Intimation as sent to the Opposite party within  stipulated period. Car was inspected by the surveyor appointed by the Opposite party and he directed him to get the car repaired from authorized dealer.  Aaryaman Automobiles prepared  the estimate of Rs.51850.78 for  repairs of the car and the said estimate was accepted by the surveyor as well as Opposite party.  Thereafter, the car was  repaired by  Aaryaman Automobiles and invoice of Rs.51851/- was  issued on  6.4.2009 to the satisfaction of the Opposite party.  He submitted  the said invoice in the office of Opposite party and completed all other formalities, but the Opposite party put off the matter on one pretext or the other. It has also been submitted that he got served legal notice dated 12.10.2009 upon the Opposite party, but same also did not yield any result.  Such act  and conduct of the Opposite party amounted to deficiency in services due to which he suffered mental pain and agony apart from financial loss.

         

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite party who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of the parties and that the complainant has no loucs standi to file the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, it has been admitted that  the complainant had made mis representation  regarding the  earlier accident which took place when the vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd, because that fact  was not disclosed. The complainant had lodged claim with the insurance company as per Motor Claim Scrutiny  form. However, he claimed no claim bonus at the time of insurance. He had received 20% no claim bonus from New India Assurance Company under cover note No.179215 dated 30.10.2008, but that fact was not disclosed to the Opposite Party. Factum of serving notice upon the Opposite Party  by the complainant has not been denied.  The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 have been tendered.

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party affidavit of Manraj Virk, Deputy Divisional Manager, Ex.OW1/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.OP9 have been tendered.

 

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                The parties are not at dispute that the car of the complainant was insured with the Opposite Party  for the period of 31.10.2008 to 30.10.2009 and the same met with an accident on 17.3.2009.The car was got repaired from Aaryaman Automobiles, Karnal, who had issued invoice of Rs.51850.78 on 6.4.2009. The complainant had lodged claim with the Opposite Party, but his claim was repudiated on the ground that he misrepresented the facts at the time of taking policy, as he had not disclosed regarding the accident which took place while the car was insured with the New India  Assurance company Ltd. and he lodged claim with that insurance company.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the Opposite party put a great thrust upon the contention that the car of the complainant was previously insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. under cover note No.179215 and the policy was to expire on 30.10.2008. The complainant had lodged claim with the New India Assurance Company Limited for an accident, therefore, he was not entitled to “No Claim Bonus”. However,  he did not disclose the said fact while taking the policy from the Opposite party, which amounted to mis-presentation. Therefore, he was not entitled to get any claim from Opposite party and his claim was rightly   repudiated.  In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon   United India  Insurance company Ltd. Versus Ranjit Singh and another Vol.

                  

8.                To wriggle out of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that contract of insurance is not available to the claim which arises out of undertaking given by the  Insurance company to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered to the vehicle during the period of subsistence of the policy of insurance. Therefore, the Opposite Party  was bound to indemnify the claim of the complainant  on the basis of undertaking given in the policy.

9.                    In Ranjit Singh’s case (Supra), the  complainant/respondent got his car insured from  United India Insurance Company Ltd., but  at the time of obtaining the policy, availed discount i.e. No Claim Bonus @ 20%  by making a false declaration that he did not receive any claim on the said vehicle from his previous insurer during the previous policy year. On enquiry by the insurance company from the previous insurer,  seeking confirmation regarding status of the vehicle during the previous policy period, the previous insurer confirmed that one claim was reported under the previous policy period. On receipt of the aforesaid report, United India Insurance Company Limited came to know that no claim was received by the complainant on misrepresentation .  In the mean time , the car had met with an accident qua which the complainant  set up claim, but the company repudiated the claim on the ground that he  was guilty of suppression of material facts at the time of obtaining of the  insurance policy in as much as he suppressed the facts of having received the claim during the expiring policy period so as to secure a false No Claim Bonus from United India Insurance company Limited. Under, those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that compensation and  No Claim Bonus  to be given by the insurance company is public money and  not to be received by misrepresentation , fraud or concealment of facts.  The policy is issued while reposing trust  over the insurer   that he would  disclose true facts before the company. As such, at the time of issuing policy, a declaration is provided under GR-27 of  All India Motor Tariff,  which is statutory regulation governing  the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insurer . A bare reading of GR-27 shows that   benefit under the policy could only be extended if the insured has disclosed all the true facts at the time of getting insurance policy issued in his favour.   Rule GR-27 further provides that the information, so supplied, if found false at  any time at a later stage, would entail forfeiture of all the benefits available under the policy.  It was further observed that a contract of insurance is contract  uberrima fide and is based upon complete good faith on the part of insured. Thus,  solemn obligation of the assured  is to disclose all the true facts. Therefore, in view of the provisions of  GR-27, which governs a grant of “No Claim Bonus” and  consequences of claiming  false “No Claim Bonus” the claim  of the complainant could not be sustained.

 

10.               The proposition of law laid down in the afore discussed authority squarely covers the facts of the present case. The Learned counsel for the complainant could not cite any authority expressing contrary view.  The copy of the cover note issued by the Opposite Party Ex.C3 shows that the complainant had disclosed that his car was previously insured with New India Assurance Company vide cover note No.179215 and the policy was to expire on 30.10.2008. The complainant had obtained the policy from the Opposite Party in respect of the same car for the period of 31.10.2008 to 30.10.2009 and  had claimed No  Claim Bonus under GR-27 for an amount of Rs.1276.20.He had not disclosed that his car had previously met with an accident and he had received claim from New  India Assurance company Limited under the previous policy. However, New India Assurance company informed the Opposite party, vide Ex.OP7 that claimant was not entitled to No Claim Bonus. Thus, the complainant misrepresented the Opposite Party by not disclosing that he was not entitled to “No Claim Bonus” as he got claim from the previous insurance company, rather he claimed  “No Claim Bonus” also false from the Opposite Party. Therefore, he was not entitled to claim any benefit from the Opposite Party under the policy.,

 

11.               Faced with such situation, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that even if the complainant had concealed the fact  that he was not entitled to “No Claim Bonus” then also his claim is to be settled by the Opposite Party on  Non  standard basis. In support of his contention, he relied upon Amalendu Shaoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ii (2010) CPJ 9 (SC)

 

12.               There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law laid down in  the  authority cited  on behalf of the complainant, but the same does not cut any ice in favour of the complainant under the facts and circumstances  of the present case. In Amalendu Shaoo’s case (Supra) the vehicle of the insured was insured for personal use, but was being used on hire  and the claim was repudiated on that ground. Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in case of violation of the condition of the policy  as to the nature of use of the  vehicle, the claim  ought to be settled on non standard basis. In the instant case, the complainant had not  violated any term or condition of the insurance policy, but he misrepresented the facts while obtaining the policy and claimed “No Claim Bonus” from the Opposite Party despite the fact that he was not entitled to do so as he had got claim from the previous insurer and was entitled to zero % NO claim Bonus. On account of such false representation he forfeited his right to claim any benefit from the Opposite party under the policy.

 

13.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:11.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-      Sh.Vijay Sahni Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Inderjeet Sachdeva Advocate for the Opposite party.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:11.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.