3.         In the written reply, filed by the OP, it was admitted that the complainant got the car, in question, insured with it, for the period from 24.11.2009 to 23.11.2010, on payment of the requisite premium. It was stated that when the claim for indemnification was received, from the complainant,  the OP verified the documents, submitted by  him(complainant)  at the time of getting the said vehicle insured. During verification, it was found that the complainant had never got the car insured from Reliance Insurance Company Limited, vide cover note annexure R-1.  It was further stated that at the time of getting the car insured with the OP, the complainant had submitted Cover Note Annexure R-1, specifically  stating that his car was  earlier insured with Reliance Insurance Company Limited, for the previous year.  It was further stated that the complainant, thus, did not disclose the  true particulars regarding the previous insurance. It was further stated that the complainant, thus, disclosed the false facts, at the time of obtaining the insurance policy, in respect of the car, which met with an accident and, as such, the  terms and conditions of the policy stood breached, and the contract of insurance became void ab-initio. It was further stated that the claim of the complainant was, thus, rightly repudiated. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OP,  to the complainant, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. 

4.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

9.        After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and, on going through the record,  we are of the   considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter.  Undoubtedly, the car, in question, was got insured by the complainant with  the OP, for the period from 24.11.2009 to 23.11.2010 on payment of premium. There is also, no dispute, with regard to the factum, that the car met with an accident on 4.12.2010, during the currency of the insurance policy. The claim of the complainant was repudiated, on the ground, that he disclosed false particulars, of  insurance of the car, for the previous year. Annexure C3 is the Insurance Cover, issued by the OP, in respect of the car, in question, of the complainant. The perusal of the same does not reveal that the complainant claimed ‘no claim bonus’ on the Policy in question, stating that he had not received any such bonus on the earlier Policy. At the time of getting his car insured, he also did not claim any discount, on account of any indemnification from the previous insurer. In these circumstances, there was no reason, on the part of the complainant, to submit a false document regarding the insurance of his car, for the previous year. Even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that such alleged false disclosure was made by the complainant, at the time of getting his car insured with the OP, for the period in question, that did not adversely affect the  interests of the OP Company. Such alleged   false disclosure, was not fundamental or germane to the accident. Had, on the basis of  the alleged false disclosure, made by the complainant, at the time of getting his car insured, with the OP, he claimed ‘no claim bonus’ or any other discount, the matter would have been different. Even otherwise, it was the duty of the OP, at the time of issuing the insurance cover, for the period, in question, in respect of the car of the complainant, to verify the facts from the previous Insurance Company. For their own fault, the complainant could not be blamed. The OP could not turn round, at the time of indemnification of loss, by taking the stand, that the insurance cover was obtained by the complainant, by disclosing the false facts.   The District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the repudiation of claim of the complainant, was illegal and invalid. The District Forum, was also right, in accepting the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of  merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

10.          The Counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance on P.C.Chacko and another Vs Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others 2008(3)CPC 248 (S.C) and Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2009(3)CPC 6(SC), in support of his contention that once a false disclosure was made by the complainant, at the time of getting his vehicle insured, the contract of insurance, becomes null and void. In P.C.Chacko and another’s case (supra), there was suppression of material facts, at the time of obtaining Policy, by the complainant. It was found that the insured, four years prior to the date of proposal, had undergone thyroid operation, which  fact was not disclosed at the time of obtaining the Policy. The insured died within 6 months of obtaining the policy. The brother of the insured was an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation, who had asked him to take the insurance policy. He being the authorized insurance agent presumably knew the effect of suppression of material fact. Non-disclosure of such a  material fact, by the insured,  was, thus,  held to be fatal. It was, under these circumstances, that the Apex Court held that the   contract of insurance  became void and the repudiation made by the Insurance Company, was legal and valid. In  Satwant Kaur Sandhu’s case (supra), it was held that any information, which is material, for entering into an  contract of insurance, if not disclosed, will entitle the insurer to repudiate the claim for concealment of fact. In that case, at the time of taking the Policy, the insured gave an answer that he was possessing sound health. He also stated that he did not undergo any treatment or surgical operation, in the last twelve months, prior to the policy. It was, however, found by the OP Insurance Company, that the insured was suffering from diabetes and he was a chronic case of renal failure, and was stated to be on regular haemodialysis. In these circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that the answers to the aforesaid questions, in the proposal form, related to the suppression of material facts. The death  of the husband of the appellant  presumably took place on account of the aforesaid disease. Thus, the Apex Court held that the repudiation was legal and valid. The facts of the aforesaid cases, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case and,  as such, no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellant, therefrom. In the instant case, as stated above, the alleged false disclosure of the previous policy, by the complainant, could not be said to be a material fact, affecting the contract of insurance. As stated above, on account of the  alleged false disclosure, at the time of obtaining the Policy, the complainant did not get any benefit, nor did he get any bonus or discount from the OP, on the basis of the previous policy. In these circumstances, the repudiation  of claim of the complainant, by the OP was certainly illegal and invalid. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

11.         No other point, was urged, by the Counsel  for the appellant.