BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                      Complaint No. :09 of 2011.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 6.1.2011.

                                                                      Date of Decision:  21.7.2015.

Dr. Sushila Arya resident of Street No.3, Near Water Works Champapuri, Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.

                                                                      ….Complainant.

                                        Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Rohtak Road Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.

…...Opposite Party.

                    COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                    THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

Shri Balraj Singh, Member

Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member

Present:       Shri R.N.Sharma, Advocate, for complainant.

                    Shri Avinash Sardana, Advocate for the OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

ORDER

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is owner of car bearing registration No. HR-19C/5606 and the same was insured with the opposite party vide insurance cover note bearing No.AMB037915. The further case of the complainant is that on 10.8.2009 the above said vehicle turned turtle while saving a cow and it was badly damaged. The complainant further alleged that FIR bearing No.242 dated 10.8.2009 was registered at Police Post New Grain Market, Bhiwani.  It is further alleged that information regarding the incident in question was given to the opposite party.  The complainant further alleged that he got repaired the damaged vehicle from the authorized centre and spent Rs.1,00,620/- on repair works and Rs.1500/- being the Crane charges. The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities, the claim was submitted with the opposite party but his claim was repudiated on false grounds. Hence, repudiation of claim of complainant by the opposite party vide letter dated 19.2.2010 is arbitrary, against the terms and conditions of insurance policy, bad in law, against the principal of natural justice, null and void and complainant is entitled to the claim amount on account of damage caused to his vehicle in the accident. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 On appearance, opposite party filed written statement alleging therein that the surveyor of the company has submitted his detailed report dated 15.12.2009 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.82433.42 paisa. However, on consideration of the documents, it was found that while placing the insurance of her car she gave a declaration on the proposal form that there is no claim on the policy with the previous insurance company i.e. NIC Ltd. and on the basis of declaration of complainant she granted NCB @ 20% but her previous insurer confirmed that a claim was reported with them on their policy. So, the complainant has misrepresented the facts. Therefore, in view of the above facts and GR No.27 of the Indian Motor Tariff, the competent authority repudiated the claim of complainant and she was informed accordingly vide letter dated 19.2.2010. Hence, in view of these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Hence, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 Photostat copy of RC, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of DL, Annexure C3 Insurance Policy, Annexure C4 DDR, Annexure C5 Repudiation Letter, Annexure C6 copy of letter written to the company, Annexure C7 & C8 AD, Annexure C9 copy of letter dated 13.1.2010, Annexure C11 to C14 copies of bills along with supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R1 Photostat copy of Survey Report, Annexure R2 Photostat copy of repudiation letter, Annexure R3 Photostat copy of letter dated 22.12.2009, Annexure R4 Photostat copy of Insurance Cover Note, Annexure R5 India Motor Tariff along with supporting affidavit.

Photostat copies of letter dated 20.1.2010, 14.9.2009 and 17.4.2009, Annexure 5.                    We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6.                 Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant did not conceal any material facts from the OP. The allegations of the OP are false and baseless.

7.                 Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of reply. He referred Survey Report Annexure R1, vide which the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.82433/-, Annexure R2 Repudiation Letter dated 19.2.2010, Annexure R3 Photostat copy of letter dated 22.12.2009 sent to the previous insurance company i.e. National Insurance Company for getting information regarding the claim of the complainant from that insurance company. In support of his contention he relied upon judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case Shri Inder Pal Rana Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Revision Petition No.4470 of 2014 decided on 2.1.2015.

8.                In the context of arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The claim has been repudiated by OP on the ground that the complainant has taken the claim from the previous insurance company and while taking the policy from the OP she claimed 20% NCB by making false declaration that no claim has been taken from the previous insurance company. To prove this fact the OP has relied on the letter Annexure R3 which has been issued by the OP to the previous insurance company getting information on five points mentioned in the said letter. The counsel for the OP referred stamp “Claim Reported” and stated that the stamp has been affixed by the previous insurance company on the letter dated 22.12.2009 Annexure R3 of the OP, but no reply has been given by the NIC to the letter Annexure R3 of the OP, giving the details the claim of the complainant. The OP has not produced the proposal form obtained from the complainant at the time of issuing Cover Note/present insurance policy, alleging the false declaration of the complainant. The Ops have failed to produce cogent and corroborative evidence in support of their contention.  Thus, repudiation of claim of the complainant by the Ops is not justified. Therefore, we hold that the Ops are liable to pay the claim to the complainant to the extent of Rs.82433/- as loss assessed by the surveyor in his report dated 15.12.2009 Annexure R1. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award a sum of Rs.82433/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment. This order be complied with by the Ops within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the Ops shall be liable to pay enhanced interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of award from the date of order till the date of payment. No order as to costs.

                    Certified copies of the order be sent to both the parties, free of costs and file be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:  21.7.2015.                                                                                         

                                                                 (Rajesh Jindal)

President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Balraj Singh) (Sushila Rathee)                   

Member           Member.