Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 216.
Instituted on : 31.03.2009.
Decided on : 31.07.2015.
Yudhvir Singh aged 45 years son of Shri Suraj Bhan, resident of village Rasiwas, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Palm Court G.F. 4 & 5 Sector 14 Gurgaon, through its Branch Manager.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. HDFC Bank, 2nd Floor, D.Park, Model Town Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.K.Verma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing no.HR-38NT/6641. He has got his vehicle insured with the opposite party at its Branch at Gurgaon on 28.04.2008 vide insurance cover note no.200702916339 and the market value of the vehicle at the time of insurance was assessed at Rs.550000/-. It is averred that in the intervening night of 24/25-05-2008 the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant was being taken by his driver Sh. Narender Kumar and when he reached in the area of village Dhani Chhuchhakwas at about 3.00.P.M. meanwhile a Roze(Neel Gai) emerged all of a sudden on the road in front of the vehicle and in order to save the cow, the vehicle struck against a dumper no.HR-63A/3083 resulting into accident and the vehicle was totally damaged. It is averred that the report about the accident was lodged by Narender Kumar driver in P.S Chhuchhakwas at Sr. no.7 dated 25.05.2008. The complainant informed the opposite party who appointed the surveyor and the surveyor inspected the vehicle and on the assurance given by the surveyor to pay the insurance claim, the complainant got his vehicle repaired and spent a sum of Rs.334248/- on the repairs and parts replaced. Complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party and completed all the formalities and requested the opposite party to disburse the claim in his favour but any heed was not paid to his genuine requests. Complainant served a legal notice dated 26.09.2008 to the opposite party but no response has ever been received. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.334248/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the vehicle in question was insured by the complainant by alleging the same to be previously insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company but in fact the cover note produced by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. was fake one. True facts are that the vehicle in question was already in accidental condition and he misrepresented the fact that the vehicle in question is already insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company and this misrepresentation was done with the sole motive to avoid the physical inspection of the vehicle, as the vehicle in question was already in accidental position and all these facts came before the insurance company during the investigation and thus the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated after due application of the mind and as per the IRDA rules. That the vehicle in question was got insured by the complainant on 21.05.2008 on misrepresentation of the facts mentioned above for the period 23.05.2008 to 22.05.2009. It is averred that opposite party appointed the investigator and during the investigation it came to know that the vehicle in question was kept by Sh. Mange Ram brother-in-law of the complainant for commercial use as taxi and Sh. Manage Ram told that previously vehicle in question was insured with IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance company vide cover note 33310925 for the period of 21.04.2007 to 20.04.2008 but at the time of insurance it was said that the vehicle in question was previously insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company vide cover note no.PC0610680133 for the period of 21.04.2007 to 20.04.2008 whereas the inured has told that the financer has got insured the vehicle with ICICI Lombard General Insurance vide cover note no.51560471 for the period from 21.04.2007 to 20.04.2008 and on investigation it was confirmed that the cover note is fake one and they have no record pertaining to cover note no.33310925 for the period of 21.04.2007 to 20.04.2008. The answering opposite party also verified the cover note no. 51560471 for the period from 21.04.2007 to 20.04.2008 from the ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. and it was confirmed that the policy against the said cover note has been cancelled due to cheque dishonour. The cover note no. PC0610680133 was also got verified from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. and it was conveyed that the cover note is missing as per their record. It is averred that all the three cover notes produced by the complainant are for the same period i.e. 21.04.2007 to 20.04.2008 and the complainant misrepresented the answering opposite party with regard to the vehicle being previously insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance co. and has taken the NCB benefits and hence the opposite party is not liable. It is averred that the surveyor has submitted the report to the amount of Rs.215668.43P but the same was not paid for the reasons as mentioned above. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R19 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that as per cover note Ex.P6, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party for the period from 28.04.2008 to 27.04.2009. It is also not disputed that as per DD Report Ex.P7, the alleged vehicle had met with an accident on 25.05.2008. After the accident the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party. Opposite party appointed the surveyor who as per his report Ex.R1, has assessed the claim amounting to Rs.215668.43/- but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R11 has closed the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” on the ground that three cover notes provided by the insured in order to get the renewal from Reliance General Insurance Company were found to be fake.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant had submitted fake cover notes to get renewal from Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and to avoid the pre-inspection survey of the vehicle. It is also submitted by the opposite parties that the complainant has also availed NCB benefits by misrepresenting the facts that the vehicle was previously insured with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company. To prove its contention, opposite parties have placed on record copy of investigation report Ex.R1 and letters Ex.R3, Ex.R5 and Ex.R6. As per the report given on letter Ex.R3, The Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. has submitted that “This cover note No.PC0610680133 is missing as per records”, as per report given on Ex.R5, it is submitted that “The above mentioned cover note and vehicle not insured with us”. After going through all these documents and reports it is observed that as per report Ex.R3, the cover note no.PC0610680133 was missing as per their record but it is not confirmed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company that the same was not issued from their company. It is also observed that as per cover note Ex.P6, the vehicle was insured by the opposite party on 27.04.2008 and NCB benefit was also given to the insured. But the NCB confirmation was taken by the opposite party from the previous owner vide letters Ex.R3 dated 04.09.2008 and Ex.R5 dated 19.08.2008 i.e. after the accident whereas as per the GR27 of Indian Motor Tariff, the same should have been confirmed by the opposite party within 21 days after granting the cover. Moreover no declaration had been taken from the complainant regarding the benefit of NCB at the time of issuing the policy. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the judgment dated 10.02.2011 in First Appeal no.771 of 2008 titled National Insurance Co. Vs. Lt.col. Hardul Singh whereby Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana Panchkula has held that: “The opposite party cannot be absolved from its liability to pay the insurable benefits to the complainant in respect of the damage of his vehicle during the subsistence of the Insurance policy as the opposite party did not adhere to the provisions of G.R.27 of the Indian Motor Tariff”. As per Revision Petition No.3134 of 2013 titled as Vijay Somany Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has also held that: “As per G.R.27-No Claim Bonus was to be allowed only after finding no claim bonus entitlement from previous insurer. It has been further mentioned in GR 27 that where the insured is unable to produce evidence of no claim bonus entitlement from the previous insurer, no claim bonus may be permitted only after obtaining declaration from the insured”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that complainant is entitled for the claim as assessed by the surveyor as per his report Ex.R1 to the tune of Rs.215668/-. It is also observed that the opposite parties had sent a cheque amounting to Rs.17550/-(photocopy of the same has been placed on record as Ex.P18) but the acceptance of the same by the complainant has not been proved on file.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite parties shall pay the amount of Rs.215668/-(Rupees two lac fifteen thousand six hundred sixty eight only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 31.03.2009 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
31.07.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
