Punjab

StateCommission

A/994/2015

Kimti Lal Bajaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Garg

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.994 of 2015

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 01.09.2015

                                                          Order Reserved on : 08.03.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:   10.03.2017

 

Kimti Lal Bajaj, aged 35 years, son of Manohar Bajaj, Resident of House No. 85, Ward No. 6, Mohalla Ghaor, Zira, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur.

                                                                                                                                                                                   Appellant/Complainant  

                                      Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Zira, District Ferozepur.

 

 

                                                                   Respondent/Opposite party

 

First Appeal against order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Ferozepur.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

         

Present:-

          For appellant                : None.

          For respondent            : Sh. B.S Taunque, Advocate

         

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

 

 J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant has directed this appeal against order dated 06.07.2015 of District Forum Ferozepur, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The appellant of this appeal is complainant in the complaint before District Forum and respondent of this appeal is opposite party therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that complainant conducts business under the name and style of M/s Kashiv Trading Company, now M/s Kimti Lal and Sons at Shop no.71 Grain Market Zira since 2006 having godown of ground nut, gachak and channa at Grain Market Zira. The complainant got insured his car bearing registration no. PB-47-D-6601, Chassis no. C62179, Engine no. E26744 Model 2011 with OP after paying premium, which was valid from 25.02.2013 to 24.02.2014. The complainant also got insured his vehicle in question from OP for further year, which was valid from 6.03.2014 to 05.03.2015 and he was parking the vehicle in his said godown as usual. On  13.02.2014, the godown of the complainant was engulfed by fire and police report no.18 was recorded to this effect at the police station of P.S City Zira on 19.02.2014, in which two cars make Hyundai I-20, which was the vehicle in question and another Tata 207 of complainant were damaged. The complainant lodged the insurance claim with OP and submitted all the documents to OP in that regard. The OP deputed the surveyor, who visited the spot and gave his report. The complainant sent the vehicle in the workshop of Godawari Motors Pvt. Ltd Moga for repair, which got repaired the vehicle and charged an amount of Rs.80,945/- from the complainant. The complainant has further spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- on other repair work of the vehicle in question. The  complainant has, thus, filed complaint against OP praying that OP be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.1 lac with interest to complainant, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. It was averred in preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is alleged to be false and frivolous in nature. The complainant has not come to the forum with clean hands. The complainant concealed the material facts from the Forum he got previously insured his vehicle from M/s Tata AIG Insurance Company.  The complainant made false declaration about the claim of getting 25% discount as 'No Claim Bonus' from OP as revealed to it after scrutinizing the papers. It was averred that previously complainant got insured his vehicle with M/s TATA AIG Insurance Company, vide policy no. 0151170060 and obtained no claim bonus on 30.1.2013 from previous insurer i.e. M/s TATA AIG Insurance Company by suppressing of material facts. The complaint was also contested even on merits and OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1  along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8.  As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Surinder Sharma  Divisional Officer Oriental Insurance Company Limited Ex.OP-1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ferozepur dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 06.07.2015. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ferozepur dated 06.07.2015, the complainant now appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for respondent of this appeal as none appeared for appellant before us during the arguments of this appeal. We observe that since after 08.07.2016, nobody has been appearing on behalf of the appellant in this case. Nobody appeared for appellant even on 17.11.2016 and thereafter case was adjourned to 02.02.2017, but nobody was present even on that date i.e. 02.02.2017 for the appellant and thereafter case was adjourned to 08.03.2017. Nobody appeared at the time of arguments for appellant even today i.e. 08.03.2017, hence we proceed to decide the case with the aid of evidence on the record after hearing the submission of counsel for respondent in this appeal.

6.      Evidence on the record is required to be adverted to by us to decide this appeal. The complainant filed his affidavit Ex.C-1 on the record. The complainant remained silent with regard to the claim received by him from the previous insurance company. Neither this fact is mentioned in the complaint nor in the affidavit of the complainant. Ex.C-2 is cover note of the insurance policy issued by OP to complainant, it commenced from 25.02.2013 up till 24.02.2014. The name of the previous insurance company is recorded, as TATA AIG General Insurance Company. The complainant claimed 25% amount on 'no claim bonus' to the extent of Rs.2624/- from OP, as per this policy. DDR no. 18 dated 19.02.2014 recorded of this incident of fire is Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4. Ex.C-5 is invoice of Godawri Motors Pvt. Ltd for repair of the vehicle. Legal notice is Ex.C-6. The repudiation of claim by OP is Ex.C-8 dated 24.09.2014 on the ground that complainant concealed fact of taking the claim from the previous insurer TATA AIG General Insurance Company and wrongly took 25% benefit of the premium on the ground of 'no claim bonus' by concealing the material facts from OP. Affidavit of Surinder Sharma Divisional Officer Oriental Insurance Company Limited to substantiate this fact is on the record, vide Ex.OP-1. Ex.OP-2 is the information received by OP from internet. Ex.OP-3 is cover note proving that vehicle-bearing no. PB 47D 6601 was insured by the complainant with TATA AIG General Insurance Company for the period from 16.02.2012 to 15.02.2013. Motor Insurance Certificate-cum-Policy Schedule Private Car Package Policy -Zone B Ex.OP-4. Proposal form for motor insurance is Ex.OP-5. This fact is not disclosed by the complainant that he had taken the claim from TATA AIG General Insurance already and hence he wrongly took 25% benefit of the premium on the ground of 'no claim bonus' by concealing the material facts from OP in this case. The matter is not res integra. The National Commission has held in Harjinder Singh Lal versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and another reported in  II(2016) CPJ 629 (NC) that complainant had taken three claims under previous policies, but in proposal form submitted to OP, intentionally supplied wrong information. It is clear from the proposal form that, in case any information furnished by complainant was found to be false, all benefits under insurance policy were to be forfeited. Insured was under sole obligation to make full disclosures of material facts, which may be relevant for insurer. Obtaining no claim bonus by concealing material facts, rendered the contract of insurance as void. Repudiation of insurance claim is, thus, justified. This authority is directly applicable to the facts situation of the case in hand. National Commission has also held in  TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd and another versus Gulzari Singh, reported in II(2010) CPJ 272 (NC) that declaration regarding 'No Claim Bonus' wrongly made by insured. Insurance being contract of uberrima fides, there must be complete good faith on the part of insured. Attempt not to disclose details of claim obtained from previous insurance companies clearly visible in documents produced on record. Contention, agent filled wrong information, not acceptable. Complainant is not an illiterate person having put his signatures, role of agent brought only, as an afterthought version and complaint was dismissed. In view of law laid down by National Commission in the above-referred authorities, which are directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no force to interfere with the order of District Forum in this appeal

7.      As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal of the appellant and same is hereby dismissed by affirming the order of District Forum Ferozepur dated 06.07.2015 under challenge in this case.

8.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 08.03.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

9.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

 

                                                               (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

March 10,  2017                                                                  

(ravi)