(Passed this on 07^th December,  2016)

Shri. S.P. Muley, President –

1.      This is a complaint against Opposite Party, Reliance General Insurance Company on repudiation of the claim for stolen vehicle.

2.      The complainant is the owner of a truck of TATA make bearing No. MH-34-W-786. It was insured with the O.P. for IDV Rs.7,30,000/- and policy was a package policy and valid from 25/5/2011 to 24/5/2012. On 9/4/2012 the said truck was stolen. A police report was lodged and intimation was also given to the O.P. immediately upon which claim was registered. The truck could not be traced out. On 10/5/2012 the complainant was informed by the O.P. about closer of the claim as NO CLAIM due to the policy not being in force for non realization of premium. The premium was paid by cheque. The OP never informed him that the cheque was dis honored for insufficient funds till repudiation of the claim. Alleging such action of the O.P. as illegal and amounting to deficiency in service, he has claimed IDV of the truck with 18% interest along with compensation and cost.

3.      The O.P. filed its written version and admitted insurance policy of the truck for the period mentioned by the complainant. The policy was valid only on realization of cheque and in the event of non realization, the policy stands cancelled. It is stated that the cheque issued by the complainant was returned unpaid by his banker on 27/5/2011. Therefore it is not denied that the claim was repudiated. It is denied that the complainant was not informed about non receipt of the premium or dis honor of the cheque. It is further stated that the truck was parked on road negligently and unattended. On all these grounds the O.P. has denied the complaint and submitted to dismiss it.

4.      We have heard the rival argument and perused the documents, affidavit and rejoinder. Upon consideration of the same we record our findings and reason as under.

FINDINGS  AND  REASONS

5.      We have perused the repudiation letter dated 10/5/2012. By this letter it was informed to the complainant that the claim was not admissible as the policy was not in force on due to non realization of the premium. Except non receipt of premium, no other ground was given for repudiation. The complainant has not seriously disputed about dis honor of the cheque. The copy of the cheque is filed on record. The counsel for the O.P. submitted that because of the date written on the cheque, it was not honored by the bank. The date is written as ¨24/5/011¨. As per the bank Memo the cheque was not honored because it was without proper date. There is no denial of the fact that the cheque was not honored and consequently, premium was not received by the insurance company.

6.      The crux of argument of Ld. counsel for the complainant is that no intimation of dis honor of the cheque was given by the O.P. and this is said to be its deficiency in service. He relied on two judgments. In Sandhya Pathak v/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2016) CPJ 68 (Chha) the deceased was insured under an accident policy. He died in an accident. His wife made claim to the insurance company. The claim was not settled. It was the contention of the insurer that the policy was cancelled prior to submission of the claim and its intimation was given to the insured. But there was no evidence of intimation of cancellation. Holding failure to give personal intimation of cancellation of policy as deficiency in service, the insurer was directed to pay assured amount. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s Manish A. Bedmutha IV (2013) CPJ 303 (NC) the insurer had cancelled the policy of the deceased. Cancellation of policy was challenged, for, it neither informed the reasons of alleged cancellation nor sought consent prior to cancellation either to the deceased or the insurer nor refunded premium amount.

7.      One judgment is also cited on behalf of the O.P. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Seema Malhotra AIR 2001 SC 1197 the insured gave a cheque to the insurer towards the first premium amount, but the cheque was dishonored by the drawee bank due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer. The issue was, whether the insurer was liable in such a situation to honor the contract of insurance ? The answer was given in the negative. In that judgment the question was little different. We are, in this case, are concerned with the issue as to the effect of non intimation of cancellation of the policy. Therefore the above citation is not relevant.

8.      The complainant has said he did not know about non- encashment of the cheque till the time he received repudiation letter.  This does not appear probable for two reasons. Firstly, the complainant has filed copy of cancellation of policy letter himself. This letter is dated 27/6/2011 and it is written that the policy stands cancelled abinitio, hence, the insurance company will not be liable for any risk arising under the policy. The complainant was requested to return the certificate of insurance and original policy. Thus it is be considered that this letter was given to the complainant just sometime after 27/6/2011. The truck was stolen on 9/4/2012 i.e about 10 months after this letter. He was knowing that the policy was cancelled much before the incident of theft. Even then he did not get the policy revived. Secondly, it was the current account of him on which the cheque was drawn. He himself has filed copy of the Statement of Account wherein particulars of cheque return details are given. The account being a current a/c he must have knowledge of the transactions. The cheque was given on 24/5/2011 and  bounced on 27/5/2011. The accident occured on 9/4/2012 i.e. after almost one year. It is not possible that for one year he did not know the status of his current account.

9.      The policy was, no doubt, issued but its validity depends on receipt of premium. If premium is given by way of cheque, it is always subject to realization. As the premium was not received the policy stood cancelled ab initio. Its intimation was given to the complainant on 27/6/2011. Therefore we do not understand how the O.P. can be held responsible for dis honor of the cheque.

10.    Considering all these facts the judgments relied on by the Ld. counsel for the complainant is not helpful. We do not find any deficiency in service of the O.P. or unfair trade practice. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.

2.