BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sandeep Gupta son of Sh. Bishan Dass, aged 34 years, resident of House NO.2358/1, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      The New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO 54-55, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

       (Regd. Off. New India Assurance Building, 87 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai)

2.      M/s Gold Key Insurance broker Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.100-101, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL                  PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                    MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Prahlad Bhagat, Adv.for complainant.

None for OP-1

OP-2 exparte. 

PER SHRI RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant had obtained an insurance policy effective from 16.3.2008 to 15.3.2009 in respect of his Tata Indica car bearing registration No.CH03-R-0863.  On 13.3.2008 he had approached the OP-2 (agent of OP-1), who after verification of the earlier cover note and records issued the cover note mentioning that No Claim Bonus (herein after mentioned as NCB) @ 35% was payable to the complainant.  On 20.1.2009 the vehicle met with an accident, information regarding which was given to OP-1 who instead of paying the claim rejected the same vide their letter dated 16.4.2009 on the ground that he had taken claim on the previous policy and had availed 35% NCB in respect of the policy in question and thus he was not entitled to any benefit.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OP-1 admitted that the insurance policy in question was issued to the complainant.  However, it has been submitted that while obtaining the said policy, the complainant had given declaration that he had not made any claim previously and, therefore, 35% NCB was granted to him.   After the receipt of the accident claim when it came to the notice of the OP that he had fraudulently claimed the NCB, letter dated 11.2.2009 was written and the complainant vide his letter dated 20.2.2009 admitted that he had earlier taken the claim of Rs.4,540/-.  It has been pleaded that as there was clear mis-representation of material facts, the policy became void ab initio and, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 12.3.2009.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             In their short written reply OP-2 admitted that the vehicle in question was renewed by them for the period 16.3.2008 to 15.3.2009 and that the complainant filed a claim in respect of the same which was to be settled by OP-1.   Pleading that they had no role in the settlement and disbursement of the claim, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua them.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 

6.             There is no dispute about it that the vehicle was insured with the OPs Company. The copy of the proposal form Annexure OP-1 and the policy schedule Annexure OP-2 shows that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OPs Company for the period 16.03.2008 to 15.03.2009.  It is also admitted by the OPs Company that the complainant alleged that his vehicle had met with an accident and he submitted a claim regarding which surveyor was appointed, who submitted his report Annexure R-5. The main contention of the complainant is that on 20.1.2009 his vehicle met with an accident and he submitted the insurance claim for the same with the OPs Company but the OPs Company had rejected the said claim vide their letter dated 16.4.2009 on the ground that he had taken claim in respect of the policy in question and had already availed 35% NCB on the previous insurance policy no. 35020431030100006487 and thus he was not entitled to any benefit. 

7.             On the other hand the contention of the OPs Company is that the complainant, while obtaining the policy in question, had given a false declaration that he had not taken any claim on the previous year policy and therefore, claimed 35% NCB on the policy in question but when the surveyor was deputed by them for assessment of the loss, it came to light that the complainant had fraudulently obtained the NCB, as he had already taken the claim of Rs.4,540/- on his previous insurance policy no. 35020431030100006487. This fact has also been admitted by the complainant in his reply to the OPs Company vide letter Annexure R-6, , which reads as under:-

While renewal this year policy in March 2008 when my insurer person asked me of any claim in last year. I forget to tell him that a small claim of Rs.4,000/- was made.

8.             The admission by the complainant in letter Annexure R-6, itself makes it clear that the complainant at the time of insuring the vehicle with the OPs Company had concealed the material facts and had made a false declaration that he had not taken any NCB under the previous insurance policy. It shows that the complainant had fraudulently taken NCB on the policy in question; inspite of the fact that the he had already taken the claim of Rs.4540/- on the previous policy no. 35020431030100006487.   In our view, the complainant has violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy by misrepresenting the material facts and giving a false declaration regarding non availing of NCB from the previous insurance policy.

9.             It is a well settled law that misrepresentation/ concealment of material facts vitiates the contract and the contract is void ab-initio and the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay damages or the assured amount. The policy was obtained by the complainant by misrepresenting the material facts and after violating the terms and conditions of the policy. As held in case “Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., and another Vs. Gulzari Singh, 2010 CTJ 497 (CP)(NCDRC)”, there was a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the complainant, hence,  the contract between the parties became void ab-initio and the OPs-Company was well within its right to repudiate the claim of the complainant. Furthermore, the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Company, as such, the complaint is sought to be dismissed.

10.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.     

                                 Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.