Haryana

StateCommission

A/1120/2014

Satbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                             First Appeal No.1120 of 2014   

                          Date of the Institution: 03.12.2014

                                                  Date of Decision: 08.06.2016

 

Satbir Singh son of Yad Ram resident of H.No.558, Gali No.3, Parnala Road, Ram Nagar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

 

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

The Manager, National Insurance Company Limited (Division  Office) Delhi-Rohtak Road, Bahadurgarh- 124507. District Jhajjar.

                                                                             .….Respondent.

 

CORAM:    Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   It was alleged by the complainant that he initially got his vehicle bearing registration No.HR63-A/8963 insured from Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited and thereafter got the insurance policy renewed from OP for the period 16.10.2010 to 15.10.2010 which was further renewed from 16.10.2011 to 15.10.2012. On 17.03.2012 his vehicle met with an accident in the State of Gujrat and information was given to respondent telephonically. Thereafter, vehicle was brought to Bahadurgarh after spending huge amount. Surveyor prepared report on 31.01.2013. As per service centre estimated loss was of Rs. 18,42,898/-  but surveyor assessed the same to the tune of Rs.4,18,887/-. Out of which Rs.12,500/- was deducted as of salvage. Despite several visits the Opposite parties did not settle his claim.

2.                          OP filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that he claimed 20 % of No Claim Bonus at the time of renewal of policy but National Insurance Company (N.I.C.), Calcutta reported that complainant preferred one claim under the policy prevailing during 18.10.2010 to 17.10.2011. As he obtained No Claim Bonus by concealing this fact, therefore, he was not entitled for any benefit under this policy. Objections about accruing cause of action, maintainability of complaint etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                          After hearing both parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 28.10.2014.

4.                          Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant (appellant) has preferred this appeal.

5.                          Arguments heard. File perused.

 

6.                          Learned counsel for the OP vehemently argued that while getting policy renewed for the period 16.10.2011 to 15.10.2012, complainant obtained No Claim Bonus of 20%. Whereas according to the Calcutta Branch of N.I.C. he submitted claim under the policy inforce during 16.10.2010 to 15.10.2011 Copy of which is Ex.R-5. In this way, he was not entitled for any compensation and District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.

7.                          This argument is devoid of any force. Firstly, OP has miserably failed to show that the complainant told at the time of renewal of policy that he has not claimed any insurance under the previous policy. It was the duty of the insurance company to prove that he made any false declaration. It is well settled proposition of law that a party who is alleging any fact is to prove the same as opined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ADDAGADA RAGHAVAMMA AND ANR VS. ADDAGADA CHENCHAMMA AND ANR AIR 1964 SC PAGE 136. If the respondent/OP have given the benefit of No Claim Bonus on it’s own, the complainant cannot be blamed for the same. Further OP has also not produced any letter written by Calcutta Branch that the complainant submitted any claim. It has only produced copies of the e-mails. Had the copy of claim form been produced the contents of the same could have been gone through properly. This is a correspondence between one branch of the insurance company with another branch. Before renewing the insurance policy, OP could have verified this fact from other branch according to GR 27 of Indian Motor Tariff (I.M.T.). The previous policy was also issued by N.I.C.  The relevant part of GR.27 of the Indian Motor Tariff is reproduced herein below:-

          “GR.27. No Claim Bonus

1. No Claim Bonus (NCB) can be earned only in the Own Damage section of Policies covering all classes of vehicles but not on Motor Trade Policies (Road Transit Risks/Road Risk/Internal Risks) and policies which cover only Fire and/or Theft Risks. For policies covering Liability with Fire and/or Theft Risks, the NCB will be applicable only on the Fire and/or Theft components of the premium. An insured becomes entitled to NCB only at the renewal of a policy after the expiry of full duration of 12 months.
2. No Claim Bonus, wherever applicable, will be as per the following table.

Xxx

3. xxx
4. xxx
5. xxx
6. In the event of the insured, transferring his insurance from one insurer to another insurer, the transferee insurer may allow the same rate of NCB which the insured would have received from the previous insurer. Evidence of the insured’s NCB entitlement either in the form of a renewal notice or a letter confirming the NCB entitlement from the previous insurer will be required for this purpose.

Where the insured is unable to produce such evidence of NCB entitlement from the previous insurer, the claimed NCB may be permitted after obtaining from the insured a declaration as per the following wording.

“I/We declare that the rate of NCB claimed by me/us is correct and that no claim as arisen in the expiring policy period (copy of the policy enclosed). I/we further undertake that if this declaration is found to be incorrect, all benefits under the policy in respect of Section 1 of the Policy will stand forfeited.”

Notwithstanding the above declaration, the insurer allowing the NCB will be obliged to write to the policy issuing office  of the previous insurer by recorded delivery calling for confirmation of the entitlement and rate of NCB for the particular insured and the previous insurer shall be obliged to provide the information sought within 30 days of receipt of the letter of enquiry failing which the matter will be treated as a breach of Tariff on the part of the previous insurer. Failure of the insurer granting the NCB to write to the previous insurer within 21 days after granting the cover will also constitute a breach of the Tariff.”

 

9.                          Now, the question comes about compensation. It is alleged by the complainant that estimated cost for repairs was Rs.18,42,898/-, but, he has not produced any evidence to prove this fact. In the absence of any evidence it cannot be presumed that he was to spend this huge amount.  As per his statement and pleadings in para No.9 of his complaint  surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs.4,18,887/- minus Rs.12500/- of salvage total amounting to Rs.4,06,387/-. The OP did not controvert this statement or pleadings specifically. So, his statement to this effect is admitted to be correct. In this way, he is held entitled for Rs.4,06,387/- as assessed by the surveyor.  He is also awarded Rs.11000/- for physical harassment,  mental agony etc. and Rs. 5100/- as litigation expenses.

 

June 8th, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench