Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I):

                Complainant Smt. Jolly Thomas, Parathodathil House, Mandiram.P.O., Ranni filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                2. Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:  Complainant is the registered owner of a Ford Figo Car bearing Reg.No.KL-62-7696, which was validly insured with the opposite party vide policy No.220643231001923 for a period from 28.06.2013 to 27.06.2014.  While so said vehicle met an accident on 26.05.2014 at Eraviperoor and the Thiruvalla Police registered the incident in the General Diary.  After the accident vehicle was towed to the authorised workshop at Moovattupuzha.

                3. Immediately after the accident the matter was intimated to the 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party deputed a surveyor for ascertaining damages.  Surveyor inspected the vehicle and prepared an estimate.  After completing the work surveyor again assessed the work.

                4. As per the assurance of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.24,654/- to the authorised workshop and took the vehicle.  Thereafter complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party several times but there is no positive response from the 1^st opposite party.  On 19.07.2014 1^st opposite party sent repudiation letter to the complainant with flimsy grounds.  Complainant is not aware about No Claim Bonus and she neither make any declaration that no claim has arisen in the previous year. 

                5. On 26.07.2014 complainant sent registered notice to the 1^st opposite party for settling the claim but no reply was received from the opposite parties.  The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service towards the consumer and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.24,654/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the proceedings.

                6. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version admitting the issuance of the policy to the complainant.  According to the opposite party, complainant obtained the policy submitting an undertaking cum declaration letter dated 28.06.2013 in which the complainant declared that no claim has arisen in the previous policy period.  Believing that opposite parties provided 20% discount to the petitioner as No Claim Bonus.

                7. Thereafter, opposite parties received an intimation from the previous insurer stating that there was a claim registered against her policy with them.  In that event, since the declaration given by the complainant is incorrect and all coverage under Section 1 of the policy from the date of commencement of the policy stands forfeited.  Opposite parties issued a letter to the complainant on 15.07.2013 demanding Rs.2,120/- as Addl. Premium.  Complainant not paid the premium and hence the policy was cancelled.  The above said act of the petitioner is a misrepresentation of fact and violation of Motor Insurance Policy.  Hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation.  With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

                8. Points for considerations are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Reliefs and Costs?

         9. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A6(a) and Exts.B1 to B6.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

        10. The complainant’s case is that he is the registered owner of a Ford Figo Car which is validly insured with the opposite parties.  The above said vehicle met with an accident and accident was reported to the opposite parties.  Opposite parties deputed surveyor and assessed the loss.  Complainant had spent Rs.24,654/- as repairing cost.  But the opposite parties repudiate the claim of the complainant with flimsy grounds.  Hence the complainant for getting repairing cost of Rs.24,654/- along with compensation and cost.

        11. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit and adduced oral evidence as PW1 and the documents produced by her were marked as Exts.A1 to A6(a).  Ext.A1 is the insurance policy of the Ford Figo Car.  Ext.A2 is the cash payment receipt of Rs.24,654/- dated 14.06.2014.  Ext.A3 is the G.D Extract of Thiruvalla Police Station dated 27.05.2014.  Ext.A4 is the Original Bill of Rs.24,654/-.  Ext.A5 is the repudiation letter dated 24.06.2014.  Ext.A6 is the legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel dated 26.07.2014.  Ext.A6(a) is the postal receipts of Ext.A6.

        12. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that complainant obtained the policy suppressing material fact.  Therefore, complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

        13. In order to prove the contention of the opposite parties, Legal Manager of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed proof affidavit along with 6 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, legal manager was examined as DW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B6(a).  Ext.B1 is the Undertaking-cum Declaration letter dated 28.06.2013.  Ext.B2 is the letter from Bajaj Allianz dated 13.06.2014.  Ext.B3 is the copy of letter dated 15.07.2013 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.  Ext.B4 is the repudiation letter dated 24.06.2014.  Ext.B5 is the copy of insurance policy in the name of the complainant.  Ext.B6 is the surveyor’s report. 

        14. Point No.1:- On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties we have perused the entire materials on records and found that parties have no dispute with regard to the issuance of the policy and the validity of the policy.  The only dispute is with regard to the repudiation of the policy.  According to the opposite parties, complainant obtained the policy by suppressing material fact and on the basis of the Declaration cum undertaking dated 28.06.2013 (Ext.B1), they issued the policy to the complainant.  On going through the Ext.B1 document we are of the view that it is not signed by the complainant, it is signed by someone else.  Signature of the complainant is entirely different in the complaint and other documents.  Moreover, complainant in the cross-examination clearly denied the document as follows:- “Application Rm\à ]qcn-¸n¨v sImSp-¯-Xv.  Rm³ H¸n«p sImSp-¯n-cp-¶n-Ã.  Cu tcJ-bn ImWp-¶Xv Fsâ H¸Ã”.  So we cannot rely the authenticity of Ext.B1 document.  Complainant also admit that she received No Claim Bonus from previous insurer.  Now a days all insurance companies are computerised.  At the time of issuance of a policy, it is the duty of the insurance company to verify the details of previous insurance.  After issuance of the policy and at the time of arriving a claim verification of previous claim and repudiation is not a fair service to the customers.  Moreover, opposite parties stated that they have issued a letter to the complainant on 15.07.2013 (Ext.B3) requesting the remittance of Rs.2,120/- within 15 days for avoiding cancellation.  Complainant denied the receipt of the letter and opposite party in her cross-examination admit that they have sent the letter by ordinary post.  From this, it is seen that important communication like Ext.B3 is done in ordinary post.  It is not legally treated to have been served.  So we cannot rely upon the issuance and acceptance of Ext.B3 document.  As per Section 1 of the policy terms, insurance company has the right to cancel the policy since the declaration is found incorrect.  Even though, they have contended that they have issued such a show cause notice to the complainant and complainant not turned up but they have not cancelled the policy till.  It is also seen that opposite party deputed a surveyor to assess the loss and he filed a report and it is marked as Ext.B6.  Hence we are find that Point No.1 in favour of the complainant.

        15. Point No.2:-  In view of the finding in Point No.1, complaint is allowed.

        16. In the result, complaint is partly allowed:

        Complainant is directed to remit Rs.2,120/- (No Claim Bonus) to the opposite parties office while receiving the order.

1. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.24,654/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand six hundred and fifty four only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of the order along with cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant.

                Declared in the Open Forum on this the 15^th day of June, 2016.

                                                                                 (Sd/-)

                                                                         K.P. Padmasree,

                                                                            (Member – I)

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President)    :  (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)                    :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Jolly Thomas

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Insurance policy of the Ford Figo Car. 

A2 :  Cash payment receipt of Rs.24,654/- dated 14.06.2014. 

A3 :  Copy of G.D Extract of Thiruvalla Police Station dated 27.05.2014. 

A4 :  Original Bill of Rs.24,654/-. 

A5 :  Repudiation letter dated 24.06.2014. 

A6 : Legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel dated 26.07.2014.  A6(a) :  Postal receipts of Ext.A6.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Manoj Kumar Malliq. M

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Undertaking-cum Declaration letter dated 28.06.2013. 

B2 :  Letter from Bajaj Allianz dated 13.06.2014. 

B3 :  Copy of letter dated 15.07.2013 issued by the opposite parties

        to the complainant. 

B4 :  Repudiation letter dated 24.06.2014. 

B5 :  Copy of insurance policy in the name of the complainant. 

B6 :  Surveyor’s Report. 

                                                                            (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Smt. Jolly Thomas, Parathodathil House,

                     Mandiram.P.O., Ranni.

      (2) The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            K.P. Vallon Road, Kadavantra, Cochin – 682 020.

      (3) The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            Kannanethu Estate, Near Saroj Gas Agency,

            Makkamkunnu, Pathanamthitta.P.O.,

            Pin – 689 645.

      (4) The Stock File.