By :  SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

           The case of the petitioner in brief is that he is the registered owner of a vehicle being No. WB 30P-7309 (M & M. Ltd. Quanto CB 7 SF, 2013). The complainant took an insurance in respect of that vehicle from the OP no.1 through the OP no.2 who is an agent of the OP No.1 Co. being policy No. 150305/31/14/6100014922 for the period from 23.12.2014 to the midnight of 22.12.2015 for a sum assured of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Unfortunately on 16.01.15 at 2.30 PM the said vehicle met with an unfortunate accident and got badly damaged. One Akash Kumar Maji having valid license was driving that vehicle. The matter of accident was informed to the OP no1 and 2 immediately after the accident and as per instruction of the OP no.1 said vehicle was given OP no.3 for repair. Estimated cost of repair was Rs. 6,32,033,66 Ps. The complainant claimed that repair cost from the OP no.1 and OP no.1 opened a claim docket being No. 150305/31/14/6190000212. Surveyor of the OP no.1 surveyed the damaged vehicle. On 27.06.2015 there was an agreement between the claimant and the OP no.1 for taking delivery of the repaired vehicle from the OP no.3 and OP no1 agreed to pay the estimated cost. But till date the OP no1 did not pay the money on the plea of “No claim Bonus” and for violation of GR 27 of the said policy and the vehicle is lying in the garage of OP no. 3 who is claiming garage charge day by day.  The complainant is not at all aware of the said violation of the policy or the matter of “No Claim Bonus” and he gave a reply to the OP no.1 by letter dated 18.09.15. On receipt of said letter of complainant the OP no.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant by letter dated 22.09.15. The complainant also informed the OP no.3 for getting the insurance amount towards repair charge from the OP no.1, but all in vain.

          Under the above premises the complainant has filed this present claim application praying for reliefs against the OPs for deficiency of service on their part.

          The OP No1 National Insurance Co. contested the case by filing written version and denied all the material allegations of the complaint petition and contended that the instant case is filed with some mala fide intention. They contended that necessary supporting documents are not filed to get the insured sum; there was no agreement regarding payment of the amount of repair as alleged by the complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner deliberately violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy to get benefit in the case. It is contended that previously this vehicle was insured with Royal Sundaram G. Insurance Co. and petitioner lodged own Damage Claim for the vehicle from the previous insurance.

          Under such circumstances, the OP-1 prays for dismissal of the claim application with cost.

          OP Nos. 2 and 3 did not appear to contest the case. So, the case is heard ex parte against them.

          On the basis of above pleadings of the parties the issues needs consideration are whether the case is maintainable and whether the claimant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

DECISION WITH REASONS.

          We have perused the complaint, the written version and all documents filed in the case by both the parties.

          Ld advocate for the OPs. 1 and 2 argued that there is no document to prove the accident in question. The complainant has not submitted any police investigation report about the alleged accident. Besides that the ld. advocate for the OP. 1 and 2 pointed out that the complainant lodged claim petition from his previous insurance Co. i.e Royal Sundaram General Insurance and suppressing that fact the complainant has got 20% ‘No Claim Bonus’ from the OPs and thus the complainant has violated the terms and condition of the policy and for this the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit from this ld. Forum. Besides that the complainant also went to Ombudsman who rejected the claim of the complainant.

          The complainant stated that there was an accident of his car on 16.01.15 at 2.30 PM at Kaksa, Burdwan in which his vehicle was badly damaged and one Akash Kumar Maji was the driver of that vehicle at that time. Curiously enough the complainant did not lodge any FIR regarding the accident either at Burdwan or at Purba Medinipur.  He has stated that he gave the vehicle to OP no. 3 for repair. The estimated cost of the repair of the vehicle was Rs. 6,32,033,66 Ps. The complainant claimed that repair cost from the OP no1 on 28.1.2015 by deposing all the documents and a claim docket being No. 150305/31/14/6190000212 was opened . According to the complainant, the OP no.1 got surveyed the damaged vehicle and the said vehicle was repaired by the OP no.3. It is also alleged that on 16.09.15 the OP no.1 gave a letter to the complainant for wrong declaration of “No claim Bonus” and for violation of GR-27 and conditions of the said policy which is unknown to the complainant and that the said matter was informed to the complainant at the time of taking the insurance policy by the OP No1 and 2.

          From the documents filed by the OP no.1 we find that there is truth in the statement of the OP no.1. In spite of getting insurance claim from the previous Insurance Co. the complainant is claiming benefit from the subsequent insurer who is the OP no.1 by suppressing the previous insurance claim and submitted declaration of ‘NCB’ on 16.09.15 and thus, the complainant had done an error. Here we find an intentional act of the complainant and an attempt to mislead the Insurance Co.  The complainant has stated that he was ignorant of the fact of NCB but ignorance is not an excuse in this case.  OP No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant and also the OP no.1 referred a judgment of Brij Bhusan Vs. National Insurance Corporation (RP No 33/2012) in support of the repudiation and also for violation of Section 64 of the Insurance Act 1938 which deals in payment of entire premium before commencement of the risk.

The complainant referred a judgment of NCDRC regarding ‘NCB’ but no how this judgment supports the case of the complainant in this case as complainant did not lodge any FIR anywhere regarding the accident in question.

Therefore, we are not inclined to give any relief to the complainant in this claim application.

Hence, it is

                                                                                        ORDERED

That the CC No. 154/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.

The parties will bear their respective cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to each of the parties free of cost.