Delhi

StateCommission

A/359/2015

ANITA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K KOHLI

12 Jul 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 12.07.2018

 

 

First Appeal No. 359/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 01.05.2015 passed in Complainant Case No. 533/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (X), New Delhi)

 

 

Smt. Anita Gupta,

N-20/196, J, N, NA, NC, NR Block,

Wazirpur Industrial Area,

New Delhi.                                                                        …..Appellant

 

Versus

 

M/s. Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.,

60, Okhla Industrial Area,

Opposite S.B.I., Okhla  Phase-III,

New Delhi                                                                       .….Respondent

 

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.      Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) wherein challenge is made to order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (X), New Delhi (in short, the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.533/2010.  By the impugned order, aforesaid complaint has been dismissed.
2. Briefly the relevant facts are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the appellant herein i.e. complainant before District Forum stating therein that she was the owner of an Eicher Canter vehicle No.DL1M 2761, which was insured with the respondent/OP for the period 05.07.2009 to 04.07.2010. The said vehicle was stolen on 31.01.2010, for which an FIR was lodged however, the vehicle could not be traced. The police had filed untraced report on 12.06.2010. Appellant/complainant filed a claim before the respondent/complainant, which was not settled. Thereupon, a complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP. Appellant/complainant had prayed for issuance of directions to respondent/OP for payment of Rs.6,50,000/- alongwith interest @18% alongwith compensation and litigation costs.
3. The complaint was opposed by the respondent/OP by filing written statement wherein it was stated that prior to insuring the vehicle with the respondent/OP, aforesaid vehicle was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. and while taking the policy in question from the respondent/OP the appellant/complainant did not disclose having taken claim from previous insurer. It was stated that appellant/complainant had claimed no claim bonus to the extent of 25% while taking the policy in question. On verification it was revealed that the appellant/complainant had preferred Own Damage Claim with the previous ins-urer in respect of the aforesaid vehicle and had taken claim from the previous insurer. It was alleged that a fraud was played by appellant/complainant and there was violation of condition No.8 of the policy. It was also alleged that vehicle was subsequently traced also and the appellant/complainant was directed to take possession of the vehicle also. Respondent/OP had opposed the claim on the ground of delay also. It was stated that the appellant/complainant was not entitled for any amount.
4. Both the parties filed evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing the parties, Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was violation of condition No.8 of the policy as appellant/complainant had taken policy by playing fraud with the respondent/OP and did not disclose the fact of having taken claim from the previous insurer.
5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed by appellant/complainant.
6. Ld. Counsel for appellant/complainant has argued that Ld. District Forum has wrongly observed that the appellant/complainant had claimed ‘No Claim Bonus’ from the respondent/OP. It is contended that the information to that effect was recorded by the agent of the respondent/OP and there is no evidence that the same was given by the appellant/complainant. It is contended that no misrepresentation as is alleged is made by the appellant/complainant.
7. Ld. counsel for respondent/OP has argued that a well reasoned order is passed and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. The stand of the appellant/complainant that information recorded in the proposal form about NCB i.e. ‘No Claim Bonus’ was not given by the appellant/complainant and the same was recorded by the agent only is considered. We have gone through the proposal form placed on record In respect of policy in question wherein details of previous policy taken from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. bearing No.BZ0800434930 and its necessary details are mentioned. The said details were exclusively in the knowledge of the appellant/complainant. The factum of having taken claim from previous insurer was also within the exclusive knowledge of appellant/complainant only. It is not believable that agent of its own had not stated in the proposal form. Further, appellant/complainant is an educated lady. She has signed the proposal form in English. It is not believable that she has not read the proposal form before signing it. The stand taken is an afterthought and is not believable, Ld. District Forum after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record has rightly held that the policy was taken by the appellant/complainant by misrepresenting respondent/OP in as much as she had taken the previous insurance claim and did not disclose the said fact while taking the policy in question. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion District Forum has relied upon the judgment passed by the National Commission in First Appeal No.268/2014 decided on 02.01.2015 titled Shri Inder Pal Rana v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
9. In view of above discussion, we find no illegality in the impugned order. Appeal stands dismissed.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum for information. 

                 Thereafter the file be consigned to record room.     

 

 

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

•  

 

 

 

 

Tri