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.622/2009
SH. RAVINDER SINGH
S/O SH. HARBHAJAN SINGH
R/O H.NO.B1/77 KIRAN GARDEN,
UTTAM NAGAR,
NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR,
DELHI-110059
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, LOTUS TOWER,
COMMUNITY CENTRE,
NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI
………….. RESPONDENT
Date of Order:06.01.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he is owner of car bearing No.DL-9CE-8907. The said vehicle was stolen on 22.7.09 in the morning and after that the same was found unclaimed at B-1 Block, Janakpuri, Delhi and AC, CNG, Kit Battery Stero, Stephy, Jank of the same has not been found in the vehicle and the matter was reported to the police and an FIR was lodged vide FIR No.192 dated 27.7.09 with the PS Janakpuri, Delhi u/s 379 IPC. Complainant informed the insurance company accordingly.
It is further stated that complainant approached OP number of times to receive his claim however nothing has been done. Since at the time of theft, the vehicle was insured alongwith its accessories so OP is liable to pay for the loss. The vehicle is lying in workshop for repair. It is a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.11,000/- for litigation charges.
OP in its reply has submitted that vehicle No.DL 9CE-8907 was insured vide policy No.015067412700 w.e.f. 29.6.09 to 28.6.10. The said vehicle was insured as per the declaration of complainant given on phone that he had filed no claim with his previous insurer and hence the above policy was issued subject to terms and conditions of the policy with a 20% discount towards No Claim Bonus. The complaint has also warranted the truth of the above declaration that in the event the above was found to be false he would forfeit all his right to recover any claim under the policy. On receipt of intimation regarding the above theft, as per procedure, an investigator was appointed to look into the factual aspect of the theft. The investigator confirmed the theft based on FIR etc.
It is further sated that OP sought confirmation from the previous insurer regarding the said 20% NCB. The previous insurer replied to OP’s query by stating that the complainant’s declaration regarding NCB was false as complainant had made claim with them. Hence the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 17.8.2009.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
The only ground on which the claim has been repudiated is that the vehicle in question was insured as per the declaration of complainant given on phone that he had filed no claim with his previous insurer and accordingly the vehicle was insured with 20% discount towards No Claim Bonus. On the receipt of information regarding the theft of vehicle, an investigator was appointed and an information was sought from the previous insurer regarding the no claim obtained by complainant from his previous insurer. The previous insurer reported that the complainant had obtained claim from it meaning thereby that the present policy has been obtained by complainant by playing a fraud.
Complaint has nowhere stated in his entire rejoinder that he has not obtained any claim from previous insurer and it is an admitted fact that he was given 20% No Claim Bonus while obtaining the present policy from OP. Complainant has played a fraud at the time of obtaining the policy hence the repudiation was justified. Reference is placed on the case of Brij Bhusan Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. etc., Revision Petition No.33 of 2012 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 22.08.2012.
Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP hence the present 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
