Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/115/2019

Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rakesh Singh Panwar - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Goyal & Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

03 Mar 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	115 of 2019
Date of Institution	11.06.2019
Date of Decision	03.03.2020

M/s Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., having its Registered Office at 24 Park Street, Kolkata-700016 (West Bengal) through its authorized signatory Sunil Gupta, available at Magma HDI GIC Limited, SCF No.110, 2^nd Floor, Phase 7, Mohali - 160061.                            

                                    …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

                                Versus

1. Rakesh Singh Panwar son of Sh.Lungi Singh Panwar resident of Rajinder Book Depot, Upper Bazar, Pauri, Garhwal, Uttarakhand-246001.

                                          ....Respondent/Complainant

2. Hi-TEK Motors, Plot No.695, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, UT, through its Managing Director.
3. Krishna Auto Sales, Plot No.177-E, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

          ....Respondents No.2 & 3/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Sanjay Judge, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Shivam Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Sh. Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.  

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.04.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.244 of 2018 qua Opposite Party No.1 and dismissed the complaint qua Opposite Parties No.2 & 3. The relevant portion of the said order dated 03.04.2019 reads thus :-

“11.        In the light of above observations, the present complaint is allowed with a direction to the Insurance Company (OP No.1) to pay 75% of the IDV of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs.3,30,000/- minus Rs.1000/- towards excess clause to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the repudiation letter dated 05.10.2016 (Annexure R-9) till its realization.  OP No.1 shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation. The aforesaid order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by OP No.1.  However, the salvage of the vehicle in question shall be retained by the insurance company.

12.         The complaint qua OPs No.2 and 3 stands dismissed.”

2.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the complainant :-

 “1.           In brief, the case of the complainant as alleged is that  he got insured his vehicle bearing  registration No.CH-01-AJ-7992 vide Insurance Policy (Annexure C-1) for the period from 19.06.2015 to 18.06.2016 for IDV of Rs.3,30,000/.  On 20.05.2016, when the complainant along with his wife was going in the vehicle in question, the same met with an accident  near Raipur Rani and the wife of the complainant suffered injuries and the vehicle was damaged.  It has further been averred that when the vehicle was taken to OP No.2 for its repairs then OP No.2 in connivance with OP No.1 to deliberate non-suit the claim raised a highly excessive bill more than the insured value and declared the vehicle as a total loss.  He requested OP No.1 to process the claim and to give the insurance amount but the same was denied  by OP No.1 vide letter dated 05.10.2016 on the ground that the NCB claimed by the complainant was fake as he had earlier taken a claim.  It has further been averred that he wrote letter dated 30.05.2017 to OP No.1 that it was incumbent upon the insurance company to verify whether 25% NCB was to be given to him or not and also informed them that even if 25% NCB rebate wrongly given to the complainant in that case at the most it was a ground to recover the difference in premium amount due to 25% NCB rebate but the claim could not be refused, but to no effect.  He also wrote a letter dated 18.06.2017 to OP No.2 to supply the copy of all the documents pertaining the vehicle in question.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint.”

3.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by Opposite Party No.1 to the complaint filed by the complainant :-

“2.      In its written statement, OP No.1-Insurane Company while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that they sent a letter dated 10.08.2016 regarding the discrepancies with regard to the NCB claimed by the complainant but he had not supplied any documents and clarifications.  Subsequently, the repudiation letter dated 05.10.2016 was sent to the complainant wherein it was observed as under:-

“Sir you  have availed NCB @ 25% in our policy at the time of renewal from Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd. whereas as on the clarifications of your previous policy submitted by you from Bharti AXA General Insurance Co., it was found that you have lodged a claim with in that policy and same was paid also”.

                It has further been pleaded that the claim was rightly repudiated as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.”

4.                    Despite numerous opportunities granted to Opposite Party No.2 it did not file any reply and evidence/affidavit, as such, its defence was struck off vide order dated 01.11.2018.

5.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by Opposite Party No.3 to the complaint filed by the complainant :-

  “4.  In its separate written statement, OP No.3 has pleaded that it was only responsible to undertake the maintenance and repair of the cars on charge basis either from the car owners or manufacturer of the car as the case may be after the sale of cars manufactured by M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd.  It has further been pleaded that it has been arrayed to verify and give the actual rates of the parts to show that the rates given by OP No.2 were illegal and highly excessive as alleged in para 7 of the complaint. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.”

6.                The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.1. 

7.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

8.             After hearing the Counsel for the complainant and Counsel for Opposite Party No.3 and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint qua Opposite Party No.1, as stated above.

9.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

10.           We have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

11.           Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has submitted that the observation of the Forum for making the payment of 75% is totally wrong and illegal as the contract of insurance is based upon the principal of utmost good faith but the complainant did not disclose about taking the claim from the previous insurer and claimed 25% NCB from the appellant at the time of taking the policy, therefore, there is a material concealment on the part of respondent/complainant, as such, he was not entitled to get any claim and prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

12.             On the other hand, Counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.1.

13.           Counsel for respondent No.2 & respondent No.3 have submitted that the Forum dismissed the complaint qua them, as such, the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.

14.           After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

15.           The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. Annexure C-1 is a copy of insurance policy. From this document, it is proved that the complainant got his vehicle insured from Opposite Party No.1 for the period from 19.06.2015 to 18.06.2016. Annexures C-2 & C-3 are copies of patient health care card & bills/receipts. From this document, it is proved that vehicle of the complainant met with an accident near Raipur Rani and his wife suffered injuries, due to which, she took treatment from CHC Raipur Rani and thereafter took treatment from Alchemist. It is also the admitted fact regarding total loss of the vehicle and repudiation of the claim vide letter dated 05.10.2016, as the complainant already availed 25% No Claim Bonus (N.C.B.). We find from the record that the objection raised by the appellant – insurance company that the respondent/complainant was guilty of concealment of facts qua ‘No Claim Bonus’ does not seem to be a valid reason because the appellant – insurance company has the primary duty to verify about the entitlement of No Claim Bonus to the respondent/complainant at the time of issuance of the policy, which the appellant failed to do so. Further, the policy was continuous from 19.06.2015 to 20.05.2016 i.e. the date of incident and during the said period, the appellant – insurance company did not demand the difference of No Claim Bonus from the respondent/complainant. Therefore, the appellant cannot take shelter of the plea of misrepresentation or concealment of the facts on the part of the respondent/complainant.

16.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

17.                   For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

18.          Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

19.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

March  3^rd  2020                                      Sd/-

                                                (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

                                                                   PRESIDENT
                       

                                                                        Sd/-

                                                          (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

                                                                        Sd/-

                                                        (RAJESH K. ARYA)

                                                                       MEMBER

 

rb