CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.352/2012
SHRI AKSHAY WADI
S/O SH. MOHAN WADI
R/O PLOT NO.6-G-1, SECTOR 2-A,
GHAZIABAD-201010, UP
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
LOTUS TOWRS, 1ST FLOOR,
COMMUNITY CENTRE,
NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110025
………….. RESPONDENT
Date of Order:21.04.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
It is not in dispute that the car make Cheverolet Beat bearing registration No.UP-14-BC-6836 was duly insured with OP for the period from 23.08.2011 to 22.08.2012. The case of complainant is that the said car was stolen on 02.12.2011 when it was parked outside the house of complainant. Complainant reported the matter to PS Indirapuram and got registered an FIR No.1503 dated 02.12.2011 u/s 379 IPC to this effect. It is not in dispute that complainant lodged a claim with OP in respect of theft of car on 02.12.2011 itself. The claim of complainant was repudiated on the ground that complainant has misrepresented the fact and also breached the provision of GR27 of the India Motor Tariff(IMT) which states that “I undertake that if this declaration is found to be incorrect, all benefits and premium paid under the policy in respect of Section I - loss or damage to the above mentioned vehicle stands forfeited”. In fact complainant concealed the fact from OP that the previous insurance policy No.23112000011903600000 with HDFC Ergo was cancelled by the said insurer and was declared void ab initio due to dishonour of the premium cheque provided by complainant.
The contention of complainant is that he never had any information from the previous insurer regarding dishonouring of the cheque and he bonafidely produced the previous policy to the agent of OP.
The fact of the matter is that the previous policy which complainant has taken from HDFC ERGO was cancelled and was declared void ab initio due to the dishonor of the cheque. In fact complainant has misrepresented the fact that he has an active policy with HDFC and falsely claimed 20% bonus. Complainant was not entitled for that bonus because there was no policy. In the policy itself it is always mentioned that in case of dishonouring of cheque, no intimation required to be given to complainant and the policy is void ab initio. Even otherwise once the cheque given towards the premium of the policy is bounced, then the policy has not come into existence at all.
Reference is placed in the case of Inderpal Rana Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. Revision Petition No.4470 of 2014 decided on 02.01.2015 where Hon’ble National Commission in para 7 has held as under:-
“7. In the case before us, by seeking a no claim bonus, the petitioner made an assertion that he had not taken any claim on the vehicle which he was seeking to insure with the National Insurance Company. Having taken a claim, he knew it very well that the aforesaid representation made by him was not correct. The aforesaid misrepresentation obviously was made with intent to deceive, so as to obtain a No Claim Bonus which National Insurance Company Ltd. would not have allowed, had the petitioner disclosed that he had already taken a claim against the aforesaid insurance policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.”
In view of the law discussed above, the repudiation of the claim is justified and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
