The present case has been filed by the complainant praying for receiving damage as per(A) schedule from OP, Insurance company, for an order to OP to give all damages, litigation cost and others.
The complainant case in a nutshell is that the complainant is the registered owner of a Truck baring no WB-31-5506 which was purchased taking loan from Indian Overseas Bank who is the OP No.2. The complainant took an Insurance Policy in respect of the said vehicle from Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. having validity period from 12.04.2012 to 11.04.2013 midnight. After expiry of the said insurance, the complainant took an insurance from National Insurance Co. Ltd. who is the OP no.1, having validity period from 12.04.2013 to 11.04.2014. At the time of journey from Digha to Kolkata on 23/11/2013 the said vehicle met an accident to save a bicycle rider and for which the vehicle was damaged as well as the driver as also helper was injured seriously. The said accident was informed to Bagnan P.S. and a criminal case being No. 441/13 dt. 23/11/2013 U/S 279/338/427 I.P.C. has been started. The complainant also informed the OP No.1 about the accident on 29/11/2013 and demanded from OP No.1 the accidental damage of the said vehicle of Rs. 4,61,299/-. The OP No.1 appointed investigator to survey the said accident and OP No.1 directed to complainant to repair the said damaged Vehicle from any authorized garage of OP. According to the Complainant the OP did not pay any claim against the accidental damaged vehicle. The OP had sent a letter dt. 08/04/2014 to the complainant wherein the OP No.1 stated about the benefit of 20persent. “No claim Bonus” taken by the complainant at the time of paying premium of Rs. 31,000/- through cheque No.320809 dt. 09/04/2013 drawn on OP No.2. Besides in the letter OP had stated about the insurance claim of Rs. 1,36,582/- from universal Sompo General Insurance. According to the complainant, the OP No.1 has repudiated the insurance claim referring the Judgment of NCDRC relating to the Case No. R.P.No.33/12 Brij Bhusan VS NIC Ltd. The complainant has demanded that he never violate any terms and condition of OP Insurance Company. As the OP No.1 has stated in the letter dt. 08/04/2014 that the complainant has breached the principal of utmost good faith in contract between complainant and OP No.1, the OP No.1 has repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant. Hence this case has been filed by the complainant.
The Op No.1 has appeared in this case by filing W/V and W/N/A wherein the OP No.1 has stated that the Complainant can not get any benefit for the breach of the specific terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as issued by the OP No.1 in favor of the complainant, for his own wrongful act and omission. According to the OP 1 the complainant suppressed the fact that the complainant had availed of O.D. claim of Rs. 1,36,582.00 from Universal Sompo Insurance Ltd. before the commencement of insurance policy of OP No.1. Having suppressed the fact the complainant broke the “utmost good Faith” of the OP regarding the said insurance and took the 20persent “No Claim Bonus”. The Op No.1 has came to know about the insurance benefit taken by the complainant from previous Insurance Company.
The OP No.1 has stated that the complainant had taken the benefit of Insurance claim before starting the existing insurance policy. According to OP the complainant changed the insurance Company only to get the benefit of 20persent “No claim Bonus” by making a false declaration to the OP.1. After getting the information about previous insurance claim benefit from Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd, the Op.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant as per law vide their letter dt. 08/04/2014 stating clearly all the facts and the position of Law. The Ld. Lawyer of OP No.1 has stated in his argument that one can get “No Claim Bonus” if the same person dose not avail or take the benefit of Insurance or Insurance claim in the previous year/years from any Insurance Company. According to OP No.1 the complainant has violated the tram and condition of insurance policy an well as Insurance Law.
The OP No.2 has appeared in this case by filing W/V as well as W/N/A wherein the OP No.2 has stated about granting of loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant for purchasing a commercial vehicle on 12/04/2012. At that time the vehicle was insured under Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. and the hypothecation of OP.2 has been marked in the said insurance and blue book of the Vehicle. According to OP No.2 the complainant had availed the insurance benefit of Rs. 1,36,582/- from the Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainant had taken the insurance policy from OP No.1 during the second year. The OP. No.2 has stated that the loan was closed on 07/05/2013 but due to non-submission of form No.35, bank-s hypothecation has not been cancelled in the blue book and the bank-s charge has not been cancelled in the Insurance Policy.
The OP No.2 has admitted that the accident happened on 23/11/2013 of the complaint-s vehicle. According to the Op No, 2 the loan was adjusted and no dues to the Bank remains, the main dispute lies in between the complainant and the Op No.1.
None of the parties adduced any evidence but they have relied upon the averments in their respective pleadings, which were supported by affidavit and the documents submitted by them before this forum and both the parties submitted their respective W/N/A .
We have gone to the pleadings the documents including W/N/A submitted by the parties on record.
Points for Consideration
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP/OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or compensation?
Decision with Reason
With an eye to the above two points the discussion are mentioned below.
Points number 1 and 2
Having perused the facts and entire documents filed by the complaint and the OPs, it appears that the complaint is the registered owner of the Vehicle(Truck) bearing No. WB31-5506, which met an accident on 23/11/2013 near Mankurmarh under Bagnan PS of Howrah and which had been insured under National Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP no.1). From the Insurance Policy certificate of OP No.1, it also appears that the validity period of Insurance policy regarding the complainant-s vehicle was 12/04/2013 to midnight of 11/04/2014. Accordingly the said vehicle met the said accident and became damaged under valid period of Insurance coverage to the vehicle number WB31-5506. The OP No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant regarding the said vehicle due to suppression of fact relating to “No Clime Bonus.” We find that the complaint at the time of opening the Insurance policy to OP No.1 submitted a Proposal Form wherein the complainant availed of facility of “No Claim Bonus.” And “A Declaration of NCB” where the complaint claimed 20persent “No Clime Bonus.” And admitted about no claim received by him in the expiring policy period. In the declaration we can find that the complaint undertook that if that declaration was found to be incorrect, than all the benefit under the policy in respect of section 1 of the policy would stand forfeited.
From the documents filed by the OP No.1 and admitted fact by OP No2 we find that the complaint availed of the Insurance claim and facility receiving Rs.1,36,582 against policy number 2315/52188705/00/000 clime number CLI 2022768 in respect of the said vehicle from Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
In spite of getting Insurance claim previous Insurance Company, the complaint had taken the benefit of “No Claim Bonus” from the subsequent Insurance Company who is OP No.1 at the time of paying premium of Rs. 31,000/- .Having suppressed the fact receiving previous insurance claim and submitted the declaration of N.C.B dt.10/04/2013 ,the complaint had done an error. Here we find an intentional fault and an attempt of misleading the insurance company by the Complaint.
The OP No.1has repudiated the claim of the complaint by letter dt. 08/04/2014 referring the Judgment of Hon-ble NCDRC on the “No claim bonus “in the case filed Brij Bhusan Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. (R.P.No.33 of 2012) and also for violation of section 64 Vb of insurance Act ,1938 which deals payment of entire premium before commencement of risk .
Having gone through the documents filed by Op No.2 it appear that OP No.2 provided the loan amount to the complaint and received the entire loan amount from the complaint. The Op .No.2 has admitted of getting the insurance claim amount by the Complaint from Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Having perused the documents on record and made the above decision we find so we find that the OP No.1 communicated with the complainant after being informed about the accident of the said vehicle and also informed as well as clarified the complainant by latter dt. 08/04//2014 the cause of repudiation of complainant Insurance Claim regarding the said vehicle. The cause of repudiation of the Insurance claim raised by the complainant is correct and justified. The OP No.1 has done the said job as per rules and regulation. So we find no deficiency no the port the Op,/Ops .As the complaint has suppressed the fact and stated above and violated the terms and condition as well as the insurance laws, then Complaint is not entitled to get any relief or compensation.
That being so, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Both these points are,thus, disposed of
Hence, it is,
Ordered
that the case being No.46/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.
