State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Tek Chand Garg on 29 March, 2017
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. : 24 of 2017
Date of Institution : 13.02.2017
Date of Decision : 29.03.2017
1. United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Regd. & Head
Office at 24, Whites Road, Chennai - 600014, and a Regional
office at SCO 123-124, Sector-17-B, Chandigarh, through its duly
constituted attorney Parveen Gupta, Dy Manager.
2. United India Insurance Co. Limited, Micro Office, Above PNB,
Mullanpur Garibdass, Office Code - 110281, through its duly
constituted attorney Parveen Gupta, Dy Manager.
--Appellants
Versus
1. Tek Chand Garg S/o Sh. Prem Chand Garg, R/o House No.61, Old
Indira Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
2. Nidhi Garg W/o Sh. Gopal Garg, R/o House No.61, Old Indira
Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh
...Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 against order dated 29.12.2016 passed by
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I,
U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.630/2015.
Argued by: Mr.Paul S.Saini, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.Sandeep Bhardwaj,Advocate for the respondents.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed this appeal against order dated 29.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short 'the Forum' only), allowing a complaint filed by the respondents/complainants No.1 & 2.
2. As per facts on record, the complainants purchased a car bearing Registration No.CH-01-AS-0004 for their self use. The car was 2 comprehensively insured with OPs w.e.f. 11.4.2015 to 10.4.201. For the purpose of said insurance, cover note (C-2 at page 17 of the Forum File) was issued on 11.4.2015. During currency of the Policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 20.6.2015. It was taken to an authorized service station and necessary repairs were carried out. On intimation given, loss was got assessed by the appellants/OPs. The complainants were advised to make payment towards repair charges, by stating that the amount spent on repairs will be sent to them through draft/cheque. Thereafter, claim was raised many a times, however, vide letter dated 18.8.2015 (C-5), their claim for reimbursement of the amount, spent on repairs, was rejected by stating that there was breach of Policy conditions. To claim 'No Claim Bonus' wrong declaration was given by the insured. The matter was again taken up with the OPs. When relief was not granted, the complainants filed a consumer complaint bearing No.630 of 2015 on 18.9.2015.
3. In a joint reply, the factum of issuance of insurance cover note was not controverted. It was also admitted that the accident occurred during the currency of the Policy. To deny claim of the complainants, it was said that at an earlier point of time, they had got the car insured with Videocon Liberty and got a claim towards some damage caused, from that company. The above fact was not disclosed and 'no claim bonus' to the extent of 25% was obtained from the appellant by signing a false undertaking. It was further said that the said act of the complainant was contrary to the provisions of General Regulation-27 sub-rule (f) of India Motor Tariff.
4. Both parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, documents attached, and the arguments addressed, 3 allowed the complaint on 29.12.2016, by granting following relief to the respondents/complainants;
[a] Pay Rs.3,44,668/- (as assessed by the Surveyor as per survey report Annexure C-6) after deducting NCB therefrom with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim, till realization.
[b] Pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;
[c] Pay Rs.15,000/- towards costs of litigation It was further ordered that the amount awarded be paid within a stipulated period, failing which, it was to entail penal interest. Hence, this appeal.
5. It is vehemently contended by the Counsel for the appellants that 'no claim bonus' was claimed by the complainants by giving wrong information at the time when insurance Policy was obtained. To support his contention, he has referred to document Ex.R-1(at page 39 of the Forum File) wherein 25% of the premium amount was claimed towards 'no claim bonus' by signing the following document by one of the complainants namely Mrs. Nidhi ;
"Declaration by the Insured I, We hereby declare that the Statements made by me/us in this Proposal Form are true to the best of my/our known belief and I/we hereby agree that this declaration shall form the basis of the contract between me/us and the United Insurance Co. Ltd.
I/We also hereby declare that any addition or alterations carried out after the submission of this Proposal 4 Form the same would be conveyed to the Insurers immediately.
I/We wish to confirm that there has been no accident to my/our vehicle since the last Policy Expiry Date till now. That I/We have remitted the premium at Chandigarh on 13.4.2015 for the insurance of the above vehicle with you. It is understood and agree that you have no liability or whatsoever nature for any Loss/Damage/Liability out of any accident earlier to 13.4.2015(time).
I/We declare that the vehicle is in perfect state and roadworthy condition.
Sd/- Nidhi
Place: Chd. Signature of the Proposer
Date:13/4/15
It was said that the Forum was not justified in granting relief to the complainants.
6. Above argument was controverted by the Counsel for the respondents/complainants by making reference to the provision of G.R.27 of India Motor Tariff. It was said that the declaration signed was not as per the tariff rules and the said declaration placed on record as Ex.R.1 was never signed by the complainants on 13.4.2015. It was said that it was a created document. All the relevant columns to disclose the factum of previous insurance Policy and claim 'no bonus claim' are left blank. Furthermore, there is no occasion to sign declaration on 13.4.2015 whereas cover note already stood issued on 11.4.015(C-2).
7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and gone through the documents available on record. The Forum was right in saying that the accident had occurred during the currency of the Policy, which was 5 valid between the period from 11.4.2015 to 10.4.2016. It was further said that there was total non-compliance by the appellants to the provisions of G.R.27 of India Motor Tariff. It was rightly said that it was bounden duty on the part of the appellants, on filing document to claim 'no claim bonus', to verify above said fact from the previous insurance Company. However, it was not so done by the appellants and as such they cannot blame the complainants for any fault committed by them. It was further noted as a matter of fact that the surveyor and loss assessor had assessed the loss at Rs.3,44,668/-. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Forum is perfect as per law.
8. Similar controversy came up for consideration before this Commission in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs J.C.Kapoor, Appeal No.311 of 2015 decided on 5.1.2016, wherein considering the similar facts, it was observed as under ;
" Not only as above, the appellant had not performed its duty, which is mandatory. Clause (f) of GR 27 of India Motor Tariff, envisaged that when an insured is getting his policy transferred from one Company to another, he is entitled to get no claim bonus on production of letter from the previous Company, confirming acceptance of NCB. If such a letter is not produced, when proposal is signed for purchase of Insurance Policy, the insured can be asked to file an undertaking, mentioning that he had not obtained NCB from the previous Insurance Company. Format of undertaking has already been extracted in the previous part of this order. This Clause casts upon the Insurance Company, an important duty to get above fact checked, with regard to non-accepting of NCB by the proposer, from the previous Insurance Company, within time bound manner. Such provision reads thus:-6
"(f) In the event of the insured, transferring his insurance from one insurer to another insurer, the transferee insurer may allow the same rate of NCB which the insured would have received from the previous insurer. Evidence of the insured's NCB entitlement either in the form of a renewal notice or a letter confirming the NCB entitlement from the previous insurer will be required for this purpose.
Where the insured is unable to produce such evidence of NCB entitlement from the previous insurer, the claimed NCB may be permitted after obtaining from the insured a declaration as per the following wording:
"I/We declare that the rate of NCB claimed by me/us is correct and that no claim as arisen in the expiring policy period (copy of the policy enclosed). I/We further undertake that if this declaration is found to be incorrect, all benefits under the policy in respect of Section I of the Policy will stand forfeited."
Notwithstanding the above declaration, the insurer allowing the NCB will be obliged to write to the Policy issuing office of the previous insurer, by recorded delivery calling for confirmation of the entitlement and rate of NCB for the particular insured and the previous insurer shall be obliged to provide the information sought within 30 days of receipt of the letter of enquiry, failing which the matter will be treated as a breach of Tariff on the part of the previous insurer. Failure of the insurer granting the NCB to write to the previous insurer within 21 days, after granting the cover will also constitute a breach of the Tariff."
It is mandated that on issuance of claiming NCB, the Insurance Company is bound to write to the previous Insurance Company calling for confirmation of entitlement and rate of NCB, as per particulars supplied by the insured. If such confirmation letter is not written within 21 days, delay constitutes the breach of Tariff. In the present case, admittedly it was not done. Had the appellant performed its duty within the stipulated period, the Policy issued could have been cancelled or an option could have been given to the insured to get it regularized on payment of an amount of Rs.2164.05Ps., which was claimed towards NCB. Nothing was done and after about more than nine months of issuance of the Insurance Policy, when incident of fire had occurred, information was sought from the previous Insurance Company, and claim of the respondent was rejected. Above 7 facts clearly shows that there was deficiency in providing service by the appellant. By not performing its duty within 21 days, from the issuance of the Insurance Policy i.e. 04.09.2013, the appellant had acquiesced and forfeited its right to get information, as referred to above, after about 09 months of the issuance of the Policy."
9. Not as above, in another case titled TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and another Vs Arvinder Brar, Appeal No.187 of 2015, decided on 21.9.2015, this Commission observed as under ;
"The car met with an accident on 06.05.2014, claim was lodged on 8.5.2014, and the same was rejected by the appellants/Opposite Parties vide letter dated 3.6.2014 (Annexure C-9) sent through registered post. As is clearly evident from Annexure R-4, it was only after lodging of the claim by the respondent/ complainant that the appellants/Opposite Parties took up with the previous Insurer for verification of No Claim Bonus details whereas they were required to do so within 21 days....... Thus, there was clear cut deficiency attributable to the appellants/Opposite Parties, as they failed to adhere to the provisions of Clause (f) of G.R.27 of India Motor Tariff, by not obtaining the requisite information, in respect of the Policy, in question, of the previous year, within the stipulated period of 21 days."
10. Furthermore, as is apparent from the reading of document Ex.R.1, relevant columns giving detail of previous insurance Policy and name of the insurer are left blank. Only it is mentioned that the insured is entitled to 25% as 'no claim bonus'. Furthermore, the said document was singed on 13.4.2015. We are going to accept the contention of Counsel for the respondents/complainants that no such document was singed on 8 that date as there was no occasion to do so as insurance cover note already stood issued on 11.4.2015. We have also gone through the declaration allegedly singed by one of the complainants i.e. Nidhi which is totally not in conformity with the provisions of GR.27 of India Motor Tariff. The fact mentioned above clearly indicates that no misrepresentation was made by the complainants. The very signing of proposal form is in doubt. Cover note was issued on 11.4.2015, and as such, there was no occasion to sign declaration/proposal form two days thereafter.
11. No attempt was made by the appellants to get name of the previous insurance company from the complainants and then to get requisite information as was necessary under the provisions of GR 27. Had the appellants been vigilant, on getting information in terms of the above said rule, they would have cancelled the Policy or on making payment of deficient amount, got it regularized. By not doing so, they have failed in their statutory duty, and as such, it is not possible for them to shift their burden on the complainants.
12. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs Harpreet Singh, Revision Petition No.3216 of 2012 decided on 8.2.2016 has also held that when insured failed to comply with the provision of G.R.27 of India Motor Tariff, on non-disclosure of some facts, the insurer will not be entitled to get any relief.
13. In view of the above, the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, 9 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting interference of this Commission.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced.
29.03.2017 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY)
Js MEMBER
10
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.24 of 2017)
Argued by: : Mr.Paul S.Saini, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.Sandeep Bhardwaj,Advocate for the respondents Dated the 29th March,2017 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(DEV RAJ) (JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.) (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER Js