ORDER

(Passed this on 18^th October,  2016)

Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President.

01.   This complaint is filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against an Insurance Company, who repudiated the insurance claim for the stolen vehicle.

02   Bereft the minute details, the case in short is that the OP 1 and 2 are respectively Head office and Branch office of Reliance General Insurance Company. The OP 3 is Union Bank of India. In the year 2010 the complainant purchased a Mahindra make Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. MH-31-DC-1151 for                  Rs. 6,82,222/-.  He paid  Rs.4,02,222/- and  obtained

loan of Rs. 2,80,000/- from the OP 3. That time the vehicle was got insured with Oriental Insurance Company till 10.2.2011. Prior to expiry of the policy he was approached by the OP 1and 2 for taking insurance policy from them and accordingly he took next year policy from the OP 1 and 2 commencing from 11.2.2011. A private car package policy was issued for IDV Rs. 4,89,663/-. A single page policy certificate without terms and conditions was issued to him.

03.  During subsistence of the policy the said vehicle was stolen in the wee hours of 10.7.2011. A police report was given on the same day and FIR was registered. Next day the OP 3 was informed and a day thereafter Regional Transport Office was intimated. It is stated that the OP2 was also intimated on even date. Thereafter for a long period communications with the OP 2 was going on for settlement of the claim. It is alleged that the delay was for various reasons on

the part of the OP 2, which are not material to decide the case, though all papers were supplied to it. After
about 252 days the complainant received a letter dt/ 26.3.2012 from the OP 1 and 2 informing him that the claim was repudiated on the ground of suppression fact as to no bonus claim received from the earlier insurance company. It is stated that he never executed or signed any proposal form to the OP 1 and 2 to purchase the policy and the policy was issued without any query regarding earlier policy or claim thereunder. Alleging unfair trade practice he has claimed an amount of Rs.4,89,663/- with interest from the OP 1 and 2 along with compensation and litigation cost.

04.  OP 1 and 2 submitted their joint written version and admitted the policy of the vehicle and its IDV. It is stated that as per information and declaration given by the complainant, the OP 2 issued him the policy subject to terms and conditions. He was given 20% rebate in the premium as No Claim Bonus (NCB) on his declaration of not receiving any claim from the

earlier insurance company. It is not denied that the intimation of theft was given, albeit without requisite documents. Therefore the claim could not be scrutinised promptly. He later submitted documents in parts from time to time and that consumed lot of time. On scrutiny it was found that he obtained policy from the OP 2 by suppressing material facts and misrepresentation and obtained 20% NCB. But in fact he had received claim from earlier insurer against previous policy. He has thus committed breach of not only condition, but of utmost faith and declaration. On this count the claim was repudiated and hence, there is no unfair trade practice. It is therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.

05.  The OP 3 despite service of notice remained absent. The complaint is therefore heard ex-parte against it.

06.  We have heard learned counsels for both the sides and also perused documents on record. On due consideration of submissions and documentary evidence we record our findings and reasons as under.

FINDINGS  AND  REASONS

07.  A limited question of fact which arises in this case is whether the complainant had suppressed material fact of receiving no claim from the earlier insurer while taking new policy from the OP2. Be it noted that the complainant did receive NCB from Oriental Insurance Company. This has not been denied by the complainant and there is documentary evidence in this respect produced by the OP2. It may also be noted that if a person while renewing policy declares that he did not claim any bonus on previous policy he gets some concession in the premium amount on renewal. Therefore declaration as to NCB is mandatory and there has to be true and correct representation. Any concealment or false representation in taking a policy

amounts to breach of policy and in that case insurer is not liable to indemnify any loss to the insured. The counsel for the OP 2 relied on a decision of National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s Dinesh Kumar (Revision Pet. No. 1046 of 2015 decided on 12.10. 2015 by NC). However in that case it was an admitted fact that for obtaining insurance cover from the OP the complainant submitted proposal form in which he declared that no claim was taken by him on previous policy.

08.  The complainant in the present case has maintained his stand that while taking policy from the OP2 he did not execute and sign any proposal form. It is stated that a representative of the OP 1 and 2 had approached him to purchase the policy by giving him assurances of good service and returns. It may be noted that no copy of proposal form was produced              by the O P 2 when  it  filed  written  version  to the

complaint. It was only on 3.9.2016 one application

came to be filed by the OP 2 for permission to produce proposal-cum-cover note for the policy. The complainant has taken strong objection alleging that this document came to be filed after the matter was finally heard after a long dilly-dallying and that too without assigning any reason for not producing it earlier. Further it is alleged that the document does not bear signature of the complainant and it is a bogus and sham document. Somehow, the application remained to be decided. Since both the counsels have now argued the case by making reference to this document, the said document is taken on record with deemed permission. The particulars mentioned in the proposal are of the complainants vehicle and it also shows 20% concession was given in the premium. However, this proposal-cum-cover note would also reveal that it does not bear signature of the proposer i.e. the complainant. An insurance policy is a contract and a contract comes into being when a person

makes a proposal. Obviously a proposal shall have signature of the proposer otherwise it does not have any value in the eye of law.

09.  There is one more aspect to this point. The OP 2 had sought information from the Oriental Insurance Company about previous policy of the complainant by letter dt/ 9.2. 2011. The Oriental Company informed about NCB taken by the complainant. But by that time it had already issued policy to the complainant. We could not ascertain when the OP 2 received the information. The date appearing beside the seal of the Oriental Company is not clear as to the year; it could be 2011 or 2012. if the information was given on 5.3.2011 the OP2 could have cancelled the policy much before the accident of the vehicle, but it was not done. If information was given on 5.3.2012 then only it can be said that the OP 2 got the knowledge almost at the fag end of the policy period. But even then the OP 2 could not prove that the complainant had given proposal form wherein he concealed the fact of having received NCB from the Oriental Company.

10.  Thus looking to the facts and documents, we are satisfied that the repudiation of the claim was not justified. There is deficiency in service of the OP 1 and 2 and they are liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss of his vehicle. The OP3, a financier bank, is not a necessary party and no relief is claimed against it. There is no deficiency of service of the OP 3. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP 3. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The OP 1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 4,89,663/- (In words Rs. Four Lac Eighty Nine Thousand & Six Hundred Sixty Three only) to the complainant along with                    9% interest from the date-10.7.2011 to till complete realisation.

3. The OP 1 and 2 shall also pay jointly and severally compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(In words Rs.Ten Thousand only) and litigation cost Rs. 5000/-(In words Rs.Five Thousand only) to the complainant.
4. The complaint against O.P.No.-3 is dismissed.
5. The order shall be complied  by O.P.No.1 & 2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
6. Copy of the order shall be given to both the parties free of cost.