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.395/2011

M/S WILLIAM OLIVER MAXWELL,

(THROUGH ATTORNEY BRAHM PAL SINGH),

SHOP NO.1, FF, LSC, USHA CHAMBER,

NEW RAJDHANI ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110092

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD.,

60, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-III,

NEW DELHI-110020

…………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                    Date of Order: 06.09.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President   

The case of the complainant is that he got his Maruti car insured with OP for the period 14.07.09 to 13.07.10 for IDV of Rs.1,40,000/- and paid premium amount of Rs.3,295/- and OP issued  cover note.  The said car of the complainant was stolen on 16.03.10.  The matter was reported to the police and FIR was registered.  However, the claim was repudiated on the ground that complainant has claimed No Claim Bonus whereas he has taken claim from the previous insurance company hence the policy was obtained by playing fraud.  It is prayed that the OP be directed to pay Rs.1,40,000/- alongwith Rs.30,000/- as compensation, Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation etc.

OP was proceeded ex parte, however, OP joined the proceedings later on and made oral submissions to the fact that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP as repudiation was justified because the policy was obtained by complainant by suppressing the fact and thereby violated GR 27 of Indian Motor Tariff.

We have carefully perused the record. 

It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for OP that firstly, there was delay of seven days in lodging the FIR.  It is submitted that the vehicle was stolen on 16.03.10 whereas FIR was lodged on 23.03.10 and this complaint is to be dismissed on this ground only. 

So far as delay in lodging FIR is concerned, in this case the vehicle was stolen on 16.3.10 while FIR was lodged on 23.3.10 Hence there was delay of seven days in lodging FIR hence complaint is not entitled for claim on this ground.  Reliance is placed on the case of Suman Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1(2013) CPJ 713(NC) – in that case the vehicle was stolen on 12.6.2009.  FIR lodged on 15.6.2009 and information was given by OP on 25.6.2009 on account of delay, claim repudiated which was held to be justified.  Similar view was taken in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Trilochan Jane IV(2012) CPJ 441(NC) and Kuldeep Singh Vs IFCCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. 11(2013) CPJ 189(NC).

Secondly, it is submitted that it is evident from the cover note placed on record that the claimant has availed 35% of NCB.  Claimant has obtained NCB by suppressing the fact that he has not obtained the claim from the previous insurance company.  Here it is useful to refer 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.”

Complainant was very well knowing that his claim has been repudiated on the ground that he has obtained the claim from the previous insurance company.  Complainant, however, has not mentioned in the complaint that he has not taken any claim from previous insurance company, meaning that complainant has taken claim from previous insurance company and concealed this fact at the time of taking this policy and thereby violated GR 27 of Indian Motor Tariff. 

The complainant has obtained the present policy by playing fraud as he has taken a claim from the previous insurance company and did not disclose this fact while taking the policy from the OP.  Claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. 

In view of above stated facts, 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