State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Darshan Kaur on 22 May, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.958 of 2016
Date of Institution : 19.12.2016
Order Reserved on: 19.05.2017
Date of Decision : 22.05.2017
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 26, Kennedy Avenue,
Court Road, Near PWD Rest House, Amritsar, through its Authorized
Officer at Regional Office at SCO no.109-110-111 Section 17-D,
Chandigarh-160017.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
Darshan Kaur, Ward no.13, Amritsar Road, Ajnala, Amritsar
(Punjab).
.....Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against order dated
13.10.2016 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate ............................................ J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
Order dated 13.10.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Amritsar (in short the 'District Forum), vide which, the complaint of respondent of this appeal, being complainant, was accepted, has been challenged by the appellant. The appellant of this appeal is the opposite party in the original complaint before the District Forum and respondent of this appeal is complainant therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.First Appeal No.958 of 2016 2
2. The complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs is on the averments that he got insured his Ford Figo Car, bearing registration no.PB-2-BW-0270 with OP by paying premium of Rs.8945/- for the period 16.02.2014 to 15.02.2015, bearing policy no.235301/31/2014/5596. Unfortunately, on 13.04.2014, the vehicle in question met with an accident, when her son Yadvinder Singh was proceeding in it and resultantly DDR no.46 dated 17.04.2014 was lodged at police station Ajnala of this accident. The complainant got her vehicle repaired from Bhagat Ford Amritsar and lodged her claim with OP company for a sum of Rs.2,07,921/- for repair and Rs.2500/- spent on recovery van from Ajnala to Amritsar for towing the car. The insurance claim of the complainant has not been reimbursed by the OP till date. The complainant prayed that OP be directed to pay the above referred amounts totaling to Rs.2,10,421/- with interest @13% per annum thereon from the date of repair of vehicle, besides Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply. The complaint was contested primarily on the ground that insured has not disclosed the material facts. The insured has not given any clarification sent to her on 08.03.2016. The previous policy obtained by the complainant from Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. was proved to be forged one and said insurance company was a necessary party to be impleaded in this case. The OP repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground that earlier policy First Appeal No.958 of 2016 3 issued by Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. was found to be forged. The contract of insurance is based on good faith and whosoever breaches it, renders it voidable at the option of the other. The complainant exercised fraudulent means by getting renewal of the policy from the OP and the renewed policy by OP, thus, rendered void abinitio and all the benefits of the policy stood forfeited. This fact was admitted that OP appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss of vehicle of Rs.1,30,411/- subject to adjustment of salvage value of Rs.2200/-. The said report of surveyor was subject to terms and condition of the policy and its acceptance for liability by the underwriters. The complainant intimated the OP about the above accident after 9 days delay on 22.04.2014, as date of accident has been alleged to be as 13.04.2014 and first information was firstly given on 22.04.2014 only without any explanation. The OP controverted the averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit and copies of documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/13 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint by directing OP to pay Rs.2,10,421/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of order till final recovery, besides Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation. Aggrieved by above order, the OP, now appellant, has preferred this appeal against the same.
First Appeal No.958 of 2016 4
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case. The OP repudiated the contract of insurance on the primary ground that complainant submitted forged policy issued by Future General India Insurance Company Ltd. before it, when she renewed policy for her vehicle. Evidence on the record has been carefully considered by us with the able assistance of counsel for the parties. Relevant document is Ex.C-3 on the record, which is the insurance policy schedule by OP in favour of complainant. On the right side of this policy schedule, previous policy number's column is printed, but it is lying vacant. The OP when renewed this policy have not given the number of any previous policy in insurance policy in question. Only date of cover note has been recorded as 13.02.2014 and nothing else in the present policy. We can safely infer from perusal of document Ex.C-3 that OP renewed the policy without taking any previous policy from complainant. Had any such insurance policy previously been issued by the previous insurance company been produced by the complainant. OP must have mentioned the previous policy number in the present cover note Ex.C-3 issued by it. This is strong indication of this point that OP took the untenable plea of forged previous policy produced by complainant at renewal stage of policy in question. The next important document on the file as relied upon by OP is Ex.OP/6. The OP wrote letter to Manager, Future General India Insurance Company Limited, Amritsar and a report has been given by the latter to the effect that policy no.2012- V1856714 FDV was having coverage of insurance risk of Ford Figo First Appeal No.958 of 2016 5 (2012), which was effective from 11.06.2012 to 10.06.2013 only, which has been issued by it. This report at the most makes it clear that complainant got her vehicle insured with Future General India Insurance Company for the period from 11.06.2012 to 10.06.2013 only. Even in the document Ex.OP/13, which is the cover note, the column of previous policy on its right hand is lying blank. On what basis, OP can term the alleged policy to be forged one, if any given by the complainant to OP at the time of renewal of the policy. If it had been so, the previous policy number must have been mentioned in the current cover note issued by the OP. We find that OP took this step just to get rid of their liability to reimburse the complainant. We have examined the other evidence on the record. It is proved fact that complainant informed the OP about the accident and it appointed surveyor and surveyor gave the report Ex.OP/4, finding the net loss of vehicle as Rs.1,30,411/- and salvage value as Rs.2200/-. On the point of delayed intimation, we find that Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India has issued the guidelines not to throw away the genuine cases of the insured on technical matters. This is proved fact that loss to the vehicle took place in an accident and matter was also reported to police, vide copy of DDR on the record. Copy of cash receipt charged by Amritsar Recovery Van Association of Rs.2500/- is Ex.C-4 on the record dated 14.04.2014. The vehicle in question was repaired by, vide bill Ex.C-5, by Bhagat Ford service station, which is an authorized service station. The loss to the vehicle was found to be of Rs.2,07,921/- by virtue of this bill. The surveyor report is not a gospel First Appeal No.958 of 2016 6 truth and his report is not conclusive and it can be proved to be wrong by the contrary overwhelming evidence on the record. In the presence of bill Ex.C-5 issued by Bhagat Ford, the report of surveyor stands rebutted. We, thus, conclude that the District Forum has rightly reached above conclusion in this case. The forceful submission of the appellant is that where the material facts have not been disclosed, the contract signed between the parties stands cancelled. The judgment of Apex Court delivered in case titled as "P.C. Chacko and another Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others" 2008(3)CLT-380 is on different facts. There is no question of concealment of any material facts or misstatement of facts in this case by the complainant, because by not mentioning the previous policy number in the insurance cover note, the OP itself is negligent and has failed to prove that policy produced at the time of renewal of the policy by complainant was a forged document.
6. As a result of our above discussion, we find no illegality or perversity in the order of the District Forum and affirm the same in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
7. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.83,727/- and Rs.2500/- (cost) in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts, alongwith interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent of this appeal, being complainant, by way of crossed cheque/demand draft First Appeal No.958 of 2016 7 after expiry of period of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant, as per order of the District Forum.
8. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.05.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
9. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER May 22, 2017 MM