Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 256.
Instituted on : 02.05.2017.
Decided on : 04.12.2018.
Mahabir Parshad son of Sh. Jagdish Chand, Resident of House No. 238/7, Vijay Nagar, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, 323/21, Delhi Road, Jawahar Market, Model Town, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing No. HR-12W-5099 and the same was insured with the respondent for a period from 14.01.2015 to 13.01.2016 vide policy No. 1112003114P108396107 and the complainant paid the required premium for the said vehicle to the respondent company. That in the month of November, 2015, the said vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. After that complainant informed the respondent insurance company regarding the damages of the vehicle in question. The respondent appointed a surveyor who duly inspected the vehicle in question. He assessed the loss of vehicle and on the asking of the surveyor, the complainant got his vehicle repaired and incurred Rs. 60,000/- on the same. After that complainant lodged his claim with the respondent company alongwith required documents and submitted the bills of Rs. 60,000/-. That the complainant visited repeatedly to the office of the respondent to get the claim amount but the respondent kept the matter in abeyance and has not disburse the claim amount till date. The opposite party repudiated the claim vide letter dated 08.03.2016 mentioning therein that the complainant has concealed the material fact. The complainant obtained NCB in the present insurance policy of vehicle, whereas there was claim on the previous policy. That the act of opposite party of not disbursing the insurance claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 60,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its accrual accident till the date of actual realization and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation as well as Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in the relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that claim intimation was received in the office of respondent as regard to the loss of the vehicle on 26.11.2015 and respondent without any delay appointed an independent surveyor Sh. Karamvir Singh Malik who submitted his detailed reply showing the liability of the respondent to an amount of Rs.31,800/- but the same was not paid, as on the perusal of the documents and proposal, it was observed that complainant has wrongly declared his eligibility for 20% NCB (No Claim Bonus). It is submitted that by making a false declaration, complainant mis-represented the fact on the declaration of NCB. That the previous insurer Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company confirmed that the complainant has lodged the claim and received the claim amount in the policy from them and the same has not denied by the complainant in his entire complaint. Thus, as per the provision of Motor insurance, complainant was not eligible for any NCB in the policy in question. Thus due to the concealment of the material facts, contract become void and hence, insurance company has no liability to reimburse. It is further denied that the complainant spent an amount of Rs. 60,000/- on the repair of the vehicle, as alleged. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is prayed that the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint may kindly be dismissed by imposing the heavy cost upon the complainant.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground that the complainant had concealed the fact of availing claim on his previous policy and has availed the benefit of NCB 20% in the present policy for which he was not entitled. To prove its contention, opposite party has placed on record document Ex.R7. Ld. counsel for the complainant has pleaded that merely availing of NCB does not disentitle the complainant from the whole claim amount. Ld. counsel has also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.19836 of 2016 titled as National Insurance Co. Vs. Naresh Kumar whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has submitted that: “In cases of the insured taking the insurance policy of the vehicle from new insurance company and it is established that the insured by making wrongful declaration has taken benefit of No Claim Bonus, his insurance claim would be reduced proportionately” and Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh in IV(2009)CPJ 365 titled Gurdeep Kaur Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. has also held that: “If any amount claimed by complainant during subsistence of earlier insurance policy, then same to be deducted from present insurance claim-Repudiation of entire claim only on the ground of false statement of NCB highly unjustified”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances it is observed that the repudiation of whole claim by the opposite party on the ground of availing the benefit of NCB is illegal and as such complainant is entitled for the claim amount on non-standard basis after deduction of 20% claim amount as well as deduction of NCB benefit availed by him from the loss as assessed by the surveyor.
6. In view of the above, we come to the conclusion that complainant is entitled for the claim amount of Rs.31800/- less 20% amount for non-standard claim and also less Rs.1238/- on account of NCB i.e. Rs.24202/-. As such we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.24202/-(Rupees twenty four thousand two hundred and two only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.02.05.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.12.2018.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
