BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.159/13.

Date of instt.: 05.08.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 30.07.2015.

Ravi Parkash son of Sh. Duli Chand, resident of 316, Biz Market, Pundri, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Kaithal.

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., New India Assurance Building, 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. M.K.Nirwani, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. C.S.Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a policy bearing No.35360431120100011483 for his car having registration No.HR-08N/6871 from the Ops valid w.e.f. 31.03.2013 to 30.03.2014.  It is alleged that on 05.05.2013 the car of complainant met with an accident and the complainant duly informed the Ops and the surveyor of Ops visited the spot and took the estimate from Tata Motors Karnal and the complainant paid Rs.84080/- to Tata Motors, Karnal for repair of his car.  It is further alleged that the complainant submitted the claim with the Ops and requested to release the amount of Rs.84080/- but the Ops told the complainant that the claim of complainant has been repudiated even cancel the policy on the ground that the complainant paid the less amount to the Ops for insurance of his car.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum.  It needs to be submitted here that just after the receipt of intimation dt. 06.05.2013 regarding the alleged loss, the company with all promptness registered the claim and Mr. Mahesh Kalra, an independent surveyor and loss-assessor was appointed for the survey, who after thorough survey submitted its report dt. 15.06.2013.  From the perusal of said report, it was revealed that the said surveyor assessed the net loss to the extent of Rs.63,900/- subject to the terms and conditions of policy and approval by competent authority.  However, it has been noticed that earlier claim arisen in the previous policy and same was paid to the complainant.  However, due to misrepresentation the complainant availed the benefit of No Claim Bonus in the current policy while concealing the facts about previous claim in the previous policy.  Thus, as per the terms and conditions of policy, all benefit under the policy will stand forfeited.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence on 17.07.2014.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A to RW3/A and documents Ex.R1 to R5 and closed evidence on 13.01.2015.     

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.  

5.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased a policy bearing No.35360431120100011483 for his car having registration No.HR-08N/6871 from the Ops valid w.e.f. 31.03.2013 to 30.03.2014.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that on 05.05.2013 the car of complainant met with an accident and the complainant duly informed the Ops.  The complainant incurred Rs.84080/- on the repair of said car.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops vehemently contends that earlier claim arisen in the previous policy and same was paid to the complainant.  However, due to misrepresentation the complainant availed the benefit of No Claim Bonus in the current policy while concealing the facts about previous claim in the previous policy.  In this regard, reliance can be made upon the authority reported as Inder Pal Rana Vs. NIC, 2015(2) CLT page 107 decided by Hon’ble National Commission, wherein it has been held that Insurance (vehicle)-No claim bonus-Complainant made false declaration that he has not taken any claim from previous insurer to get benefit of NCB-Plea of complainant that it is the duty to insurer to verify the declaration and claim cannot be repudiated on this ground-Held-Even if there has been failure on the part of the officers of the Insurance Company in verifying the declaration made by the petitioner, while taking the policy, what cannot be a good ground for reimbursing him on the basis of a policy, which he obtained by misrepresentation to the insurance company.  In para No.8 of said judgment, it has been held as under:-

        8.     Even if there has been failure on the part of the officers of the Insurance Company in verifying the declaration made by the petitioner, while taking the policy, what cannot be a good ground for reimbursing him on the basis of a policy, which he obtained by misrepresentation to the Insurance Company.  If we allow such a claim only on the ground that the officials of the Insurance Company should have verified the declaration made by the petitioner, and they having not done so, the insured cannot be denied his claim, that may result in a situation where pursuant to a connivance between the insurer and the officials of the Insurance Company the insured makes a misrepresentation and the officials in connivance with him does not verify the said representation.  In such a case, the Insurance Company would be saddled with liability on the basis of a contract which has been entered on the basis of misrepresentation.  We, therefore, reject the contention advanced by the learned for the petitioner.

In the case in hand, the counsel for the Ops has placed on file copy of policy premium schedule which clearly shows that the complainant has taken the benefit of no claim bonus.  It is clear from the document regarding NCB confirmation Ex.R4 that as per their records, the claim exist for the given policy number and it is paid status.  From these documents, it is clear that the complainant has obtained the policy by mis-representation.  Therefore, the said authority is fully applicable to the present case.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops. 

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.30.07.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.