CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.190/2011

M/S ABHI ENTERPRISES

SAHARANPUR ROAD,

YAMUNA NAGAR, DISTRICT YAMUNA NAGAR,

HIMACHAL PRADESH

THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY:

SH. MOHD. SAJID

S/O SH. SAYEED AHMAD

R/O TOWN & P.S. KIRATPUR,

DISTRICT BIJNOR, U.P.

PRESENTLY AT:

J-3/32-B, KHIRKI EXTENSION,

MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI

                                             …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                   

Vs.

THE MANAGER

M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,

60 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110020

                                                          …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                 Date of Order: 10.08.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav, President

It is not in dispute that vehicle of the complainant i.e. Tata Safari Dicar was insured with the OP for the period from 19.03.2009 to 18.03.2010 for IDV of Rs.5 lakhs.  The case of the complainant is that the aforesaid vehicle was stolen during the night of 08.5.09 and for that a report was lodged at P.S. Malviya Nagar and the claim was lodged with OP but despite sending a legal notice, the claim was not settled.   It is stated that it is case of clear cut deficiency of service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that the OP be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.5 lakhs against the insurance policy and also pay Rs.2 lakhs for compensation and Rs.20,000/- for litigation expenses.

OP in the reply took the plea that the complainant has obtained the insurance of Reliance General Insurance Company by showing its previous insurance with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company and stated that he has not taken any claim during the last policy period.  Believing the statement of complainant, OP gave 20% of the insurance amount as NCB(No Claim Bonus) as per provisions of Indian Motor Tariff.  The same is evident from the insurance policy that discount of Rs.2,340/- was given to complainant.

It is further stated that OP verified the fact from the previous insurer of the vehicle namely Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. and found that the complainant has taken claims during the last policy period and he was not entitled for any discount on account of NCB, which complainant has taken by misrepresentation.  The complainant was accordingly issued a repudiation letter.  The policy was obtained by false representation and claim was justifiably repudiated and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also referred to the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nitin Khandelwal IV(2008) CPJ(SC).  The facts of that case are entirely different.  In fact in that case, the vehicle was used for commercial purpose and the claim was repudiated on that ground.  It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that it was a case of theft so it was not germane whether the vehicle was used for commercial purpose.  Hence the claim was decided on non standard basis whereas the present case related to obtaining of the policy by misrepresentation and fraud. 

Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also referred to the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhupinder Singh 2013(2) CPR 171 (NC).    The facts of that care are entirely different. 

Ld. Counsel for the OP has also referred to the case of Inderpal Rana Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. Revision Petition No.4470 of 2014 decided on 02.01.2015 where Hon’ble National Commission in para 7 has held as under:-

“7. In the case before us, by seeking a no claim bonus, the petitioner made an assertion that he had not taken any claim on the vehicle which he was seeking to insure with the National Insurance Company.  Having taken a claim, he knew it very well that the aforesaid representation made by him was not correct.  The aforesaid misrepresentation obviously was made with intent to deceive, so as to obtain a No Claim Bonus which National Insurance Company Ltd. would not have allowed, had the petitioner disclosed that he had already taken a claim against the aforesaid insurance policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.”

“8. Even if there has been failure on the part of the officers of the Insurance Company in verifying the declaration made by the petitioner while taking the policy what cannot be a good ground for reimbursing him on the basis of a policy, which he obtained by misrepresentation to the Insurance Company.  If we allow such a claim only on the ground that the officials of the Insurance Company should have verified the declaration made by the petitioner, and they having not done so, the insured cannot be denied his claim, that may result in a situation where pursuant to a connivance between the insurer and the officials of the Insurance Company the insured makes a misrepresentation and the officials in connivance with him does not verify the said representation.  In such a case, the Insurance Company would be saddled with liability on the basis of a contract which has been entered on the basis of misrepresentation.  We, therefore, reject the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”

It is significant to note that in this case the complainant has obtained the insurance policy from OP and has taken 20% NCB by misrepresenting the fact that he has not taken any claim during the last policy period.  OP has placed on record the copy of the insurance policy.  The first page of it shows that complainant has obtained a sum of Rs.2340.10 towards NCB @ 20%(Exhibit R-1).  OP has also placed on record previous policy obtained by the complainant from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.(Exhibit R-3) showing that the complainant has obtained a claim from the previous insurer hence he was not entitled to NCB.  In para 4 of the preliminary objection, it is clearly stated that the policy was obtained by misrepresentation as the complainant has obtained claim from the previous insurance company but misrepresented that he has not obtained any such claim.  This fact has not been specifically denied by the complainant in the rejoinder.  The submission of OP in para 8 of the preliminary objection of the reply, that the claim was duly repudiated and the letter was sent to the complainant, is not specifically denied by the complainant. 

In view of the law laid by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of Inderpal Rana Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. Revision Petition No.4470 of 2014 decided on 02.01.2015, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the claim case was justifiably repudiated.  Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

(D.R. TAMTA)                    (RITU GARODIA)                        (A.S. YADAV)

         MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT