DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:136 of 2010] Date of Institution : 05.03.2010 Date of Decision : 16.09.2011 --------------------------------------- Sh. Anurag Sharma son of Late Sh. Vijay Sharma, resident of House No.509, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S The Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.2, B&C, 4th Floor, Sector 28-A, Madya Marg-160002. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESI DENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Raj Karan, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Anurag Sharma has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following directions to OPs:- i) To pay a sum of Rs.2,34,581/- as repair charges of the car along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 12.1.2010 till payment; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that on 16.4.2008, he purchased a Ford Fiesta car from Chandigarh and got it insured from M/s Bajaj Allianze Insurance Company Limited for the period from 16.4.2008 to 15.4.2009 vide Cover Note (Annexure C-1). Thereafter, he shifted to Karnal. So, he could not get the insurance renewed in time. On 24.11.2009, he got the said car insured from the OP for the period from 24.11.2009 to 23.11.2010 vide Cover Note (Annexure C-3). He paid a premium of Rs.15,804/-. It has been pleaded by the complainant that on 14.12.2009, the car met with accident near Mullanpur. He informed the OP immediately. Thereafter, he took the vehicle to Saluja Motors, Industrial Area, Phase III, Mohali for repairs. The OP appointed a surveyor who surveyed the vehicle. According to the complainant, he was told that the case for indemnification of the loss was being processed. He was further told that as there was no facility for cashless claim settlement, the complainant should get the vehicle released from the workshop after making payment of the bill, which would be reimbursed. So, according to the complainant, he paid a sum of Rs.2,34,581/- to Saluja Motors for repairs of the vehicle vide bills (Annexures C-5 to C-8). Thereafter, he submitted all the documents along with his claim form for indemnification of the loss. However, to his surprise, according to the complainant, he received letter dated 16.2.2010 (Annexure C-9) whereby his claim was repudiated on the ground that the complainant has submitted wrong particulars regarding the previous insurance policy. According to the complainant, he had not given the particulars of any previous policy to the agent of the OP as he had not claimed the discount for no claim on the previous policy. Thus, the repudiation of the claim, according to the complainant, is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been fled by the complainant seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In its written reply filed by OP the factum of having insured the car for the period from 24.11.2009 to 23.11.2010 has been admitted. It has also been admitted that the complainant had paid the requisite premium. According to the OP, when the claim for indemnification was received from the complainant, OP verified the documents submitted by the complainant at the time of getting the said vehicle insured. It was found that the complainant had never got the car insured from Reliance Insurance Company Limited vide cover note (Annexure R-1). The case of OP is that at the time of issuance of cover note, the complainant had submitted Cover Note (Annexure R-1) stating that the car was insured with Reliance Insurance Company Limited for the previous year. Thus, according to OP, the complainant did not disclose true particulars regarding the previous insurance. According to Op, it is well settled proposition of law that the insurance contract like any other contract is based on utmost good faith. Therefore, if any information is found to be wrong, the contract goes. In these circumstances, according to OP, the claim has been rightly repudiated and the claim deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. The claim filed by the complainant has been repudiated vide letter (Annexure C-9). The relevant portion of the same reads as under:- “We wish to inform you that the vehicle no.CH 04C 1602 was insured with us under policy no.71168418 for the period 24.11.09 to 23.11.10. While procuring insurance coverage from us to your vehicle, you had submitted the previous insurance particulars. The concerned insurer has denied that the said documents not issued by them. The information furnished by you is a misrepresentation of material fact to procure insurance from us. In view of the above, the contract becomes void and the captioned claim is not admissible under the policy. The claim is, therefore, being closed as No Claim.” 6. From the bare perusal of this letter, it is apparent that the claim has been repudiated on the ground that for procuring insurance coverage from the Reliance Insurance Company Limited, the complainant submitted wrong particulars regarding the insurance of the car for the previous year. Annexure C-3 is the Insurance Cover Note issued by the OP. From perusal of the same, it is apparent that the complainant has not claimed any discount on account of not claiming any indemnification from the previous insurer. In these circumstances, the complainant had no reason to submit a false document regarding the insurance of his car for the previous year. The OP has failed to point out as to how it has been adversely affected by wrong submission of the said particulars. 7. Furthermore, the OP should have verified the facts mentioned above before issuance of the policy. If the complainant had furnished wrong facts, the vehicle should not have been insured and the premium should have been returned. Now at the time of indemnification of loss, the OP cannot take the stand that insurance was procured by furnishing wrong facts. 8. Reference may be made to Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Vs. Khursheed and another, Civil Writ Petition No.3996 of 2011 of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided on 22.3.2011, wherein it has been held that :- “…Insurance Companies are charging hefty premium for insuring the vehicles. Once the question of liability arises, the companies resort to one technical objection and the other. These Companies really chase people and literally promise everything at the time of selling policy. It is usual to see people struggle to run after agents and surveyors to get their rightful claims. Such agents then look other way and make insurers to make rounds to Company offices. Insurers are then made to approach the Courts and are even dragged to this Court on one technical plea or the other. No one really is made to read the terms while making him to sign on the printed forms for selling policies. This attitude must change. At least, the Courts should not be burdened with this uncalled for litigation” 9. To our mind, OP is trying to find out a false excuse to repudiate the claim in order to avoid its liability. So, in these circumstances, the repudiation of the claim amounts to deficiency in service. 10. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following direction to OP (Insurance Company): - (i) to pay an amount of Rs.2,34,581/- to the complainant being the repair charges of the car;. (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony. (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 11. This order be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to refund Rs.2,84,581/- i.e. (Rs.2,34,581 + Rs.50,000) to the complainant along with penal interest @18% p.a. from the dates of filing the complaint i.e.05.03.2010 till its realization besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 12. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 16th September 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.136 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 09.09.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. Announced. 16.09.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
