CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/587/15

          Date of Institution:-    04.12.2015

          Order Reserved on:- 25.04.2024

          Date of Decision:-      06.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ashutosh Singh

(authorised representative of Ms.Anuradha Singh)

S/o Sh. ChanderShekhar

R/o 269-B, F Block Street No.15,

Phase-6, MG Road,

Aya Nagar, New Delhi - 110074

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

United India Insurance Company Ltd.

46, VasantLok, VasantVihar, South West,

New Delhi - 110057

.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. Ms. Anuradha Singh has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) through Ashutosh Singh i.e. her authorised person with the allegations thatSmt. Anuradha Singh is the owner of vehicle bearing no. DL9CAJ-1406 which was insured with the OP vide cover note no. 04130031143106794480 valid from 27.11.2014-26.11.2015. On 27.04.2015, the vehicle met with an accident and intimation was given to the OP. A claim of Rs.82,000/- was raised with the OP which was rejected on the ground of misrepresentation of the fact by the OP. A legal notice dated 16.09.2015 was issued to the OP to do the needful but in vain. Hence, this complaint.
2. The OP has filed the written statement with the averments that there was misrepresentation and suppression of facts by the owner of the vehicle at the time of taking of the renewal of the policy. The owner of vehicle had taken the policy from Future Genralli India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 27.11.2013 which was valid till 26.11.2014. The owner of the vehicle has taken the claim during this period. The owner of the vehicle has not disclosed at the time of renewal of the policy that she has taken claim on the previous policy. The owner of the vehiclehas taken NCB from the OP. The policy in question was issued to the complainant. The complaint is not maintainable as matter will be referred to “arbitrator” in case of dispute between the parties. There is no privity of contract of Ms. Anuradha Singh with OP. There is no authority with Ashutosh to file the complaint.The claim was repudiated on the ground concealment and suppression of material fact of the OP.
3. The AR of the owner of the vehicle has filed the rejoinder to the written statement of OP wherein he has denied the averment of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.
4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
5. The AR of the owner of the vehicle has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein has has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance of the documents.
6. The OP has filed the affidavit of Ms. Angela Samad, Deputy Manager, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statementand placed reliance of the documents Ex.RW1/1 to 1/2.
7. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the OP as complainant did not turn up to address the arguments. The case was reserved for orders by keeping in view it age.
8. The perusal of the file shows that Ms. Anuradha Singh is owner of the vehicle in question. She had taken the insurance policy from Future Generalli India Insurance Co. vide policy no.HFA61267 valid from 27.11.2013-26.11.2014. She has taken the claim from the said insurance company. These facts are nowhere controverted by the AR of the owner of the vehicle.
9. Ms. Anuradha Singh has taken the present policy bearing no.04130031143106794480 from the OP which was valid from 27.11.2014-26.11.2015. The owner of the vehicle did not disclose that she has taken the claim from the earlier insurance company and claimed“No Claim Bonus”. The No claim bonus of Rs.1969.80/- was given by the OP to the owner of the vehicle.The vehicle met with an accident which was got repaired andowner paid Rs.81,582/- to the service station which is apparent from the credit invoice dated 21.05.2015 on record. The OP has appointed the surveyor who accessed the liability of the OP to the tune of Rs.61387/-. The surveyor report Ex.RW1/2 is filed by the OP. The claim was rejected by the OP on the ground of misrepresentation and non-discloser of material fact as apparent from Ex.RW1/1.
10. Mr. Ashutosh Singh has been authorized by Ms. Anuradha Singh owner of the vehicle to file any application before any competent authority. The authority letter is annexed with the complaint. The owner of the vehicle has filed the complaint through her AR.
11. The question that needs consideration iswhether OP was right in rejecting the claim of the owner of the vehicle when she was not entitled for No Claim Bonus.
12. To our mind, the OP was not right in rejecting the claim of the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle has taken the earlier policy from Future Generalli India Insurance Co. Ltd. The new policy was taken from the OP. The owner of the vehicle had taken the claim on the earlier policy so she has made a wrongful declaration that she is entitled for no claim bonus. The OP has failed to seek confirmation regarding correctness of declaration made by the owner of the vehicle for no claim bonus within the stipulated period as provided in GR27 of India Motor Tariff. The OP was not justified in repudiating the claim. The owner of the vehicle has taken the benefit of no claim bonus by making the false declaration. The insurance claim would be reduced proportionately.
13. The loss has been assessed by the surveyor of the OP. The report of the surveyor shows that the liability of the OP is to the extent of Rs.61387/-. The owner of the vehicle is entitled for the payment of amount assessed by the surveyor after making a deduction of Rs.1969.80/- (given as 20% no claim bonus). Support is drawn from RP No.1836/2016 titled as Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. VsNaresh Kumar decided on 18.04.2017 by Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.
14. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint is allowed to the effect that owner of the vehicle is entitled for payment of a sum of Rs.59417/- (20% no claim bonus is deducted from the claim of Rs.61,387/- assessed by the surveyor)with interest @7% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim on 29.08.2015 till its realization.The owner of the vehicle has undergone mental agony so owner of the vehicle is also entitled for compensation on this score also. The OP shall pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and litigation charges. The OP shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of order failing which owner of the vehicle is entitled for interest @7% p.a. on compensation from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 06.05.2024.