Delhi

South II

cc/225/2012

AMARJEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Nov 2022

ORDER

Udyog Sadan Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-16
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. cc/225/2012
( Date of Filing : 05 Jun 2012 )
 
1. AMARJEET SINGH
D-1/71, 1st FLOOR, POCKET-1, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. TATA AIG GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD.
LOTUS TOWER, 1st FLOOR, NEAR SURYA HOTEL AND COMMUNITY CENTER, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI-110025.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Monika Aggarwal Srivastava PRESIDENT
  Dr. Rajender Dhar MEMBER
  Rashmi Bansal MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 09 Nov 2022
Final Order / Judgement

     CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

 

Case No.225/2012

 

AMARJEET SINGH

S/o. SHRI SULTAN SINGH

R/o. D-1/71, 1st FLOOR,

Pkt-1, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085                    .…..COMPLAINANT

 

Vs.

M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER

LOTUS TOWER, 1st FLOOR,

COMMUNITY CENTRE, FRIENDS COLONY,

NEW DELHI-110025.                                                      .…..RESPONDENT

          

 

Date of Institution-05.06.2012

                                                                        Date of Order- 09.11.2022

 

  O R D E R

RASHMI BANSAL– Member

The present complaint is filed by the complainant claiming for release of insured amount of his vehicle, repudiated by OP along with compensation for suffering mental and physical pain, agony, harassment and litigation cost.

  1. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle, Honda city, registration number DL-3C-BE-2776, registration dated 07.02.2009, chasis number  MKKGM252L8N002625, E No.  – L15870003874, registered in his name was insured with OP at 0% depreciation for a period from 08.12.2011 to 07.12.2012 on a premium of Rs. 22,616.00/-, with IDV of Rs. 8,10,000/-, Ex. CW1/A (Colly, with RC). On 01.02.2012, while he was travelling to Sonipat, Haryana from Delhi, his vehicle caught fire and fire engine seized the fire. The copy of the report of fire station is Ex. CW1/B. In the incident the said vehicle was totally burnt. Complainant also received some injuries and was removed to hospital. The copy of the medical document is exhibit CW1/C. An FIR Number,149/2012, dated 02.02.2012, Ex. CW1/D was lodged with police. The complainant stated that he had submitted all the required documents with OP for clearance of his claim, however, OP refused to consider his claim, which constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP as his vehicle was comprehensively insured with the OP and due to refusal of OP to settle the claim, the complainant has suffered loss of his said vehicle and prayed for claim amount along with interest, compensation and litigation cost. Complainant has also filed an additional affidavit at the time of final arguments placing on record the cash receipt dated 25.11.2011 issued by one Mr. Bhupender Malik, showing that Rs. 8,80,000/- received in cash from complainant as full and final payment towards DL 3C BE 2776.

 

  1. The OP filed its reply and evidence by way of affidavit admitting the issuance of the insurance policy, Ex. RW1/1 and appointment of surveyor to assess the loss as total without prejudice to the terms and conditions of the policy.

 

  1. OP submitted that complainant in his statement dated 07.03.2012, Ex. RW1/2, given to the investigator, has stated that he has purchased the said vehicle from one Mr Bhupinder Malik for an amount of Rs. 8,80,000/- in November 2011 and fire had spreaded from front side stereo / blower.

 

  1. It is submitted that while the claim was being processed, it came to light that the said vehicle was purchased by complainant but from one Mr. Ankit Suri, the then owner of the said vehicle as salvage for Rs.4,35,000/-  in November 2011 and  not from Mr. Bhupender Malik. At that time the vehicle was insured with ICICI Lombard insurance Co. Ltd. for the period 26.03.2010–25.03.2011. The said vehicle, had met with an accident on 11.02.2011 and the claim of Mr. Ankit Suri had been settled by ICICI Lombard for Rs.1,40,000/- on cash loss basis and the salvage sold to complainant for Rs.4,35,000/. The entire correspondence with respect to the sale of salvage and insurance claim of Mr. Ankit Suri purchase is Ex. RW1/3 (colly). OP further submitted that above said vehicle/salvage remained uninsured for almost 9 months before obtaining insurance from OP fraudulently on 08.12.2011 and within one and half months of commencement of insurance, the said vehicle allegedly caught fire on 01.02.2012.

 

  1. In view of serious doubts, OP has referred the matter to a forensic expert, to confirm the authenticity of the claim and to ascertain the exact cause of fire. The forensic investigator, vide his report dated 01.05.2012, Ex. RW1/4, supported by an affidavit, stated that based on thorough and in-depth inspection, search, identification, collection and analysis of physical, documentary and oral evidence of car in question, it is concluded that the fire in the car occurred not on account of short circuit or being of single origin, rather it appears to have originated in multiple origin and several parts of the vehicle were also found missing including the stereo, indicating that the stereo could not have been in the car when the alleged fire was taken place, which fact was confirmed by the photographs taken by surveyor too. The forensic investigator was of the view that the version of the insured regarding the fire having been originated from a single source, does not find evidence support when burnt vehicle and photographs were examined scientifically.

 

  1. OP has submitted that the complainant has obtained the insurance of the vehicle by deliberate fraud and misrepresentation and the same is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance, entered into on the basis of utmost good faith, was rendered void-ab-initio as there was mala-fide intention on the part of the complainant, else there was no reason to hide the fact and the so called fire also appears to have been engineered. The injury certificate, produced by complainant is undated, vague, and does not substantiate the story of the complainant regarding injuries sustained by him.

 

  1. OP further states that complainant had not addressed the objections of OP in his rejoinder and evidence except mere denial to OP’s reply and report of expert vis-a-vis the authenticity of the claim and the veracity of his own declaration, re-purchase value of the vehicle which vitiate the contract of insurance and since the insurance has been obtained by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts, the said claim of the complainant was repudiated, vide repudiation letter dated 23.06.2012, ex. RW1/5, on the ground of misrepresentation and non- disclosure of the material facts, thereby violating the declaration in the proposal form. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint, denying that complainant has suffered any harassment, mental/physical pain agony as there was no deficiency in services on the part of OP.

 

  1. In response to the additional affidavit filed by complainant, the OP has also filed its additional affidavit by way of evidence, stating that the receipt of Rs. 8,80,000/-  does not inspire any confidence as no cash transaction in excess of Rs. 20,000/-could have been made legally in 2011, and the said receipt has no legal validity. OP alleged that the said receipt is manufactured, concocted piece of paper. OP reiterated the contents of his reply and evidence.

 

  1. Both the parties filed their evidence and written arguments and relevant document on record. We have carefully perused the documents and analyzed the case.

 

  1. The insurance policy and incident of fire dated 01.02.2012 to above said vehicle is not in dispute. The only point for consideration is whether the above stated policy has been obtained by the complainant by playing fraud and misrepresentation and suppressing the material facts and whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?

Complainant has placed on record, additional affidavit which evidences the cash receipt dated 25.11.2011 issued by one Mr. Bhupender Malik, of Rs. 8,80,000/- being received in cash from complainant as full and final payment towards DL 3C BE 2776, however, the said receipt does not inspire confidence as it appears a result of afterthought. The document that has to be placed on record at the first instance at the time of filing complainant was produced at much later stage, which also is not supported by any sale purchase agreement between Mr. Bhupinder Singh and complainant, whereas, the Ex. RW1/3, is also a sale purchase agreement, dated 26.05.2011, duly notarized on 20/- non-judicial stamp paper bearing number 01AA 655420, entered between Mr Ankit Suri, the seller,  and complainant, the purchaser, which reads statement of complainant as follows:

“ 1. I am aware that the vehicle had met with an accident and is being sold and salvage and having been aware about it, I am purchasing the vehicle with utmost consciousness and under no pressure, threat,: from anybody but so ever.

2.That I have purchased the above said vehicle and I shall be fully responsible for all challans, insurance, taxes, and accident occurs in future and its legal formalities as maybe for the above-mentioned vehicle from the date of purchase that is 25.05.11. I hear by expressly hold myself responsible for transfer of title of the asset under the law and the record of the appropriate authorities if any.”

The affidavit  also bears the signature of complainant and a side mark “bought as salvage”.

  1. Complainant RC shows him the second purchaser and RC of Mr. Ankit Suri shows him as  first purchaser of the said vehicle, which establish that vehicle was transferred from Mr. Ankit Suri to the complainant not from Mr. Bhupinder Malik. There is clear cut misrepresentation and suppression of material facts on the part of complainant, but also the fraud played by complainant in obtaining insurance from the OP. 

 

  1. The Apex court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, 2000 SCC (Cri) 726, has observed that:

“3. Fraud and justice never dwell together (fraud et just nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything (Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley)”.

 

  1. In view of the above deliberation, we find that the OP, by cogent evidence, has established misrepresentation and fraud played by complainant in obtaining the insurance at the 100% IDV, which  vitiate the liability fastened on the OP, therefore, we hold that OP is right in repudiating the claim of the complainant.  The complaint is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merit.

 

  1. Copy of order be given to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to record room after uploading the order on web site.

 

  1. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

  1. The order contains 6 pages and bears my signature on each page.

 

 

(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR)               (RASHMI BANSAL)    (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)

       MEMBER                                          MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 
 
[ Monika Aggarwal Srivastava]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Dr. Rajender Dhar]
MEMBER
 
 
[ Rashmi Bansal]
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.