BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No  :1028 of 2009

Date of Institution :  22.07.2009

Date of  Decision   :  26.11.2009

Parveen Kumari Garg Wd/o Sh. Sandeep Jain, H.No.1274, Sector 11, Jain Niwas, Ranjit Nagar, Kharar.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]  Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No. 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

[2]  The Incharge/Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Extension Counter, Chandigarh Road, 1^st Floor of HDFC Bank Ltd., Kurali.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

          SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA        MEMBER

          DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL     MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.Raman Sharma, Adv. for Complainant.

 Sh.G.S.Ahluwalia, Adv. for OPs.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

         Concisely put, the Complainant was owner of Maruti Car No. PB-27-C-1004 and got the same comprehensively insured with the OP vide cover note Annexure C-2. She being a handicapped lady was unable to drive the vehicle and as such, her husband used to drive the said vehicle. Unfortunately, on 23.2.2008, the vehicle met with an accident, wherein her husband died owing to injuries sustained by him. A copy of the DDR to this effect registered at PS Kathgarh, District Ropar is at Annexure C-1. The car had suffered extensive damage and as per the estimate obtained from authorized dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd., the total repair value was to the tune of Rs.1,71,256.11, which means that the car was beyond repair and was totally damaged. She lodged a claim for damages, upon which OP No. 2 vide letter dated 4.7.2008 informed that they had received confirmation of no claim bonus (NCB) from the previous insurer M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. with the remarks that one claim amount of Rs.6,343/- had been taken from the previous insurer and that a false declaration was made with the OPs for claiming the “No Claim Bonus”. Immediately, she sent a reply dated 23.9.2008, but to no avail. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]       Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 

3]       In their written reply, the OPs did not dispute the factual matrix of the case. It was pleaded that OPs have validly repudiated the claim of the Complainant since the claim of the Complainant was in breach of the terms of the Policy. The Complainant had misrepresented to the OPs by wrongly stating/ concealing the factum of previous claim[s] in respect of the motor vehicle in question. It was asserted that their liability came to an end when they learnt that the Complainant had obtained NCB from them by giving false declaration to the effect that she had not obtained any claim from the previous insurer. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]        The claim was repudiated by the OP vide annexure C-3 on the ground that a claim for Rs.6343/- was lodged with the previous insurer that is  Royal Sundram Alliance Company, (but thereafter the said company was changed) and the proposal form annexure R1 was filled up in which claim lodged during the preceding 3 years was shown as nil and “no claim bonus” of Rs.1139.63 was obtained as shown in the Insurance Policy annexure C-2. 

7]        The contention of the complainant is that infact her husband who is now deceased, use to get the insurance done and that the agent while filling up the form annexure R1 did not put any question to her husband about the “no claim bonus”. There is no merit in this contention. Certain facts are clear from the documents. In the column in which the claim of compensation was to be mentioned in annexure R1, the said columns were left blank.  The proposal form is dully signed by Sandeep Jain, husband of the complainant.  On the basis of this concealment “no claim bonus” of Rs.1139.63 was allowed to the complainant as is clear from the annexure C-2.  Even after receiving the insurance policy no objection was raised regarding the grant of “no claim bonus”.  It therefore shows that the claiming of compensation from the earlier insurer was intentionally concealed from the OP to get “no claim bonus”.

8]        Annexure R-5 is the report showing that a claim for Rs.6343/- was lodged with the previous insurer.  The complainant has not filed any affidavit to suggest if no compensation of Rs.6343/- was obtained from the previous insurer. It is therefore clear that a wrong declaration was made by the complainant to the OP-insurer due to which the contract of insurance becomes null and void.  Under the similar circumstances in an Appeal No.157 of 2009, National Insurance Company Limited etc., Vs. M/s Ganpaty Bricks Traders, decided by the Honorable State Commission on 7.08.09, the complaint filed by the appellants claiming compensation for loss was dismissed.

9]        We are therefore of the opinion that in the present case, having given wrong information, the complainant has forfeited his right to be compensated by the OP against the policy which is based on a concocted  and false declaration. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.

10]       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges.  The file be consigned.