State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Royal Sundaram Alliance General ... vs Sanju Dongre on 9 September, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
(A/11/2368)
Appeal No.87/2011
Instituted on : 17/02/2011
1. Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance
Company Limited.,
Sundaram Towers, 45 & 46, Whites Road,
Chennai
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance
Company Limited.,
Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road,
Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellants
Vs.
Sanju Dongre, S/o Late Shri Janardan Dongre,
R/o - Santoshi Nagar, Khamtarai,
Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ....Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri N.K. Thakur with Shri Sanjay Nayak, Advocates for appellants.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 09/09/2011 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.01.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.160/2010, whereby the appellants herein, have been directed to pay Rs.4,32,000/- to the respondent/complainant, along with interest // 2 // @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 22.03.2010 till date of payment, on account of theft of the insured vehicle. It has further been directed to the appellants to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. It is not in dispute that a vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No.C.G.04/H.A.2846, was of the registered ownership of the complainant, Sanju Dongre, which was insured by the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited/Insurance Company under a „Private Car Package Policy‟ for sum assured Rs.5,76,000/- for a period between 21.10.2008 to 20.10.2009. The case of the complainant before District Forum was that the said vehicle was stolen by someone on 25.03.2009, when it was parked in front of house of the complainant under locked condition. The incident was immediately reported to the Police and also to the Insurance Company. Later on, a claim was preferred by the complainant before the Insurance Company, which was repudiated by it on the ground that complainant was guilty of violation of Term No.4 of the insurance policy and, so, no claim is payable. Then, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum. In reply of which also, the Insurance Company averred that the complainant has wrongly claimed "no claim bonus" at the time of seeking insurance for the vehicle and a discount of 20% in the amount of premium, was provided to him on account of the fact that he had // 3 // not earlier claimed any bonus for the vehicle from the earlier Insurance Company. Later on, it revealed to the Insurance Company that the statement made by the complainant at the time of making proposal for insurance of the vehicle, was not true and, thus, complainant was guilty of betraying the Insurance Company by making a false claim at the time of making proposal for the insurance of the vehicle, so the Insurance Company, was not liable to pay any amount under the insurance policy, as policy has become void on account of suppression of material fact and making a false claim at the time of making proposal for the insurance of the vehicle.
3. Learned District Forum, after having considered the rival contentions of both parties allowed the complaint of the complainant and awarded compensation on „non-standard basis‟ equivalent to 75% of the Insured Declared Value (I.D.V.) of the vehicle.
4. The Insurance Company felt aggrieved with the order passed by the District Forum and came up before us by way of this appeal.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants/Insurance Company, is that it was falsely narrated by the respondent/complainant at the time of making proposal for the insurance of the vehicle that he had not claimed any amount against O.D. from the earlier Insurance Company, with which the vehicle in // 4 // question was earlier insured, whereas in fact the amount was claimed from the Insurance Company with which the vehicle in question was earlier insured. He submitted that this fact has been stated by the witness of the appellants/Insurance Company namely Shri G. Vinay Prakash, by filing his affidavit and there is no reason to disbelieve his statement.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the Insurance Company has totally failed to adduce any evidence to prove its defence. It has been submitted that if it was case of the Insurance Company that the respondent/complainant had claimed some amount against the vehicle insurance from the earlier Insurance Company, with which the vehicle in question was insured earlier, then the best evidence to prove such allegation was to file either affidavit of a person of that Insurance Company, or to produce documents regarding payment of claim of the respondent/complainant by that Insurance Company. No such document has been filed by the Insurance Company, so mere saying of one witness of the appellants/Insurance Company, Shri G. Vinay Prakash, is not sufficient. It has also been submitted that Shri G. Vinay Prakash, has also not specifically stated this fact on oath in his affidavit and has simply verified the contents of the written version by filing his affidavit and by saying that contents of paragraph Nos.1 to 9 of the // 5 // written version filed on behalf of OPs were true to his knowledge. He submitted that no specific evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to prove this particular fact. It has also been submitted by him that respondent/complainant in his affidavit has stated that he has not violated any terms of the insurance policy nor committed any such act, which may amount violation of terms of the insurance policy. It has been also stated by him that only one page insurance policy was issued by the Insurance Company to the respondent/complainant, which was not at all containing any terms & conditions of insurance.
7. After having gone through the entire record of the District Forum and having considered the arguments advanced by both parties, we are convinced that Insurance Company had failed to adduce any cogent, reliable and conclusive evidence to establish that the respondent/complainant was guilty of concealment of any material fact at the time of making proposal for the insurance of the vehicle and he has falsely claimed „no claim bonus‟ from the appellants/ Insurance Company, whereas he had already collected some amount of claim from the earlier Insurance Company, with which the vehicle in question was earlier insured. As no specific evidence has been led, no document has been filed and no affidavit of any officer or official of the earlier Insurance Company has been filed // 6 // so, the defence taken by the appellants/Insurance Company, is found as not proved.
8. Further, in the letter of repudiation of claim issued by the appellants/Insurance Company to the respondent/complainant, which is available in the record of the District Forum as Annexure A- 10, it has been stated that it has been observed by the Insurance Company from the claim papers that there has been a "Misrepresentation of Fact" with regard to the previous policy details. It has not been mentioned anywhere in the whole of letter of repudiation that the respondent/complainant was guilty of concealment of any material fact or that he has wrongly claimed „no claim concession‟ from the appellants/Insurance Company in the premium by claiming that he has not collected any amount from the earlier Insurance Company, with which the vehicle in question was earlier insured. In letter of repudiation mainly it has been mentioned that no proper steps were taken by the claimant to safeguard the vehicle from loss and thereby Condition No.4 of the policy has been violated, under which the insured was required to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss. Thus, from this letter, it appears that the only ground for repudiation of claim of the respondent/complainant was that the insured had not taken all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss and casually it has // 7 // also been mentioned that with regard to previous policy details, there was some misrepresentation of fact.
9. If we consider both these grounds, which have been taken by the Insurance Company in the letter of repudiation, then we find that none of such ground, is sustainable in the facts of the present case. It has not been specified as to what wrong details have been provided by the respondent/complainant regarding the previous policy, which may amount misrepresentation of fact and it has also not been specified as to what more reasonable steps were required to be taken by the owner of the vehicle to safeguard it from loss. The respondent/complainant has stated that he has parked the vehicle in question, just in front of his house and was properly locked. In First Information Report (F.I.R.), the same thing has been stated. Therefore, from all these facts and circumstances, we are convinced that all proper steps have been taken by the insured to safeguard his vehicle from loss and defences taken by the Insurance Company in the letter of repudiation were not tenable.
10. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt.Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/09/2011 /09/2011 /09/2011