Uttar Pradesh

Aligarh

CC/21/2017

ANKUR AGRAWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRIRAM GENRAL INSURANCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

DR RAJIV MOHAN

24 Jun 2023

ORDER

न्यायालय जिला उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग
अलीगढ
 
Complaint Case No. CC/21/2017
( Date of Filing : 17 Jul 2017 )
 
1. ANKUR AGRAWAL
S/O PRADEEP KUMAR R/O 106 SIKANAPANANSH TEHSILHATHRAS
HATHRAS
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. SRIRAM GENRAL INSURENCE CO LTD
2ND FLOOR NIBARI HOUSE NEAR SOOT MILL CROSSING ALIGARH BY BRANCH MANAGER
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 24 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

  1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-
  1.  The Ops be directed to reimburse the complainant for the damages amounting Rs.534701/
  2. Litigation expenses Rs.11000/
  3. Compensation for mental agony Rs.100000/.
  1. Complainant stated that he obtained the GCCV public carriers other than 3wheelers  packages policy on 21.9.2016 from the OP with respect to his Bularo pickup no. UP 86 T 4167 which was effective from 24.9.2016 to 23.9.2017. The vehicle was financed by UDVFSL. On 27.10.2016 the vehicle met with the accident and was damaged by tractor trolley. Complainant informed the Op immediately and moved claim for compensation for damages caused to the vehicle. Sushil Kumar appointed for spot inspection and the vehicle was brought to the garage for repairs where estimate of Rs.534701/ was prepared which was given to surveyor Sushil Kumar but the claim was rejected on 10.11.2016.
  2. OP has stated that the Bularo bearing registration no. UP 86 T 4167 was insured for Rs.500000/ for the period 24.9.2016 to 23.9.2017. Complainant had made a false declaration on no claim bonus as he had agreed and undertook to waive all benefits under the policy if the declaration was found to be incorrect. At the time of insurance of policy complainant took the benefit of no claim bonus and he had agreed undertook to waive all benefits under the policy if the declaration was found to be incorrect. Accordingly the claim was rejected.
  3.  Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. And Ops have also filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.
  4. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
  5. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant can be denied to get the benefits under the policy having made a false declaration on no claim bonus?
  6. OP insurance company had stated that the complainant is guilty of violation of the mandatory terms and conditions of the policy i.e. he has made a declaration at the time of taking the insurance policy to take benefit of no claim bonus and to waive all the benefits under the policy. The complainant made a false declaration on no claim bonus and he had agreed to waive all the benefits under the policy if the declaration was found to be incorrect. It means that the complainant had taken the benefit of no claim bonus and he made false declaration in this regard. As he had undertaken to waive all the benefits under the policy, he is not entitled to get the benefit under the policy. We have given serious thoughts on the terms and conditions of the policy in view of provision of section 2(46) –“unfair contract” under the Consumer Protection Act,2019.It is to be noted that the benefit of no claim bonus is petty amount and waiving of the benefits under the policy having taken benefits of no claim bonus does not appear to be fair and is oppressive.  Therefore any undertaking given by the complainant at the time of taking the policy is hit by the provision of 2(46) of the Act and entitled the complainant to raise the plea for not applying the said terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly OP cannot be denied to get benefit under the policy on the ground of alleged terms and conditions of the policy. We are the opinion that the complainant is entitled for reimbursement of the amount Rs. 534701/, litigation expenses Rs.5000/ and Rs.15000/ for mental harassment. 
  7. The question formulated above is decided in favour the complainant.
  8. We hereby direct to the op to pay the complainant Rs. 534701/ within a month with pendente lite and future interest at the rate 9% per annum.  for reimbursement, Rs. 5000/ for litigation expenses and Rs.15000/ for mental harassment.
  9. Op shall comply with the directions and on failure OPs shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
  10. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
  11. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.