National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Brij Bhushan vs National Insurance Company Limited. & ... on 22 August, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 33 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 24.08.2011 in First Appeal No.1453 of 2006 of the State Commission, Punjab) Brij Bhushan S/o Shri Sharan Dass C/o M/s A.B. Tyres, Opposite P.W.D. Rest House, Sangrur, Punjab .Petitioner Versus 1.National Insurance Company Limited Regional Office, S.C.O. 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh Through its duly constituted Attorney 2. ICICI Bank Limited, Through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Kaula Park, Sangrur .........Respondents BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukund Gupta, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 22.08.2012 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER The revision petitioner Mr. Brij Bhushan has challenged the decision of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in First Appeal No.1453 of 2006. The matter arose out of an insurance claim which had been repudiated by the respondent National Insurance Company Limited. The District Forum has allowed the claim as per the assessment of loss by the Surveyor appointed by respondents/OPs. However, the appeal against the order of the District Forum was allowed by the State Commission, dismissing the complaint.
2. Brief facts of the case, as seen from the record, are that a truck owned by the appellant/Complainant was insured with the respondents/OPs for Rs.9.7 lakhs. During the period of operation of the policy, the truck met with an accident on 4.1.2004. The Surveyor appointed by the insurance company made an assessment of loss and the Complainant, allegedly with the oral consent of the Surveyor, got the vehicle repaired, spending over Rs.5.5. lakhs. The respondent/National Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 23.6.2005 giving the following reasons On going through the documents, including your representation dt. 26/04/2005 and the circumstances, the competent authority, after due application of mind, has observed that, since you have deliberately and fraudulently misrepresented and misled the co., while getting benefit of 55% NCB, transferred on your new truck no.pb-13-I-5375, you have breached the principle of utmost good faith, which is the foundation of the contract of insurance in question. Moreover, you have utterly failed to justify your entitlement of 55% discount on the premium as well as indemnity against the loss caused to your vehicle in an accident dated 4-01-2004.
As per the Indian motor tariff 2002, framed by the tariff advisory committee, a statutory body under the insurance act, 1938, you are not entitled to any own damage claim, since in the light of general regulation no.27, all the benefits under Section-I of the policy of insurance, stand forfeited in the given circumstances of this case.
Hence your claim, with regard to the accidental damages dt. 4-01-2004, caused to vehicle no pb-13-I-5375, is hereby repudiated and we are not liable to pay any amount as claimed by you.
3. In the consumer complaint before the District Forum Sangarur, challenging the repudiation of the claim, the case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that the vehicle was insured after paying full premium advised by the agent of the opposite parties, who had also informed him that he would be entitled to no claim bonus. The same was allowed by the Branch Manager of the insurance company. After repair of the vehicle all the bills and estimates were submitted to the Branch. If in the opinion of the Branch Manager, he was not entitled to no claim bonus (NCB), the former should have sought payment of additional amount of premium within 21 days of issuing the cover note. It was alleged that the question of no claim bonus was raised by the OP only after he had lodged the claim for damage to the vehicle in the accident of 4.1.2004 i.e. several months after issue of the cover note.
4. On the other hand, the case of the OP/Insurance Company was that its authorized agent was informed by the Complainant that his old vehicle was insured with another insurance company and had been sold. The insurance of the previous vehicle was claimed to have been shifted to the new vehicle. Therefore, the benefit of NCB was allowed, believing his statement. But, on verification with the previous insurer, it was discovered that the cover note 602984 of 10.3.2002, mentioned by the Complainant, was actually issued in the name of one Balwinder Singh. The Complainant also wrote to the Division Manager, National Insurance Company, Sangrur on 27.10.2004 that the vehicle mentioned earlier belonged to him and had been sold and that the insurance was shifted to his new vehicle.
5. We have carefully perused the record submitted by the revision petitioner and have heard Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate on his behalf. Learned counsel argued that the District Forum was right in holding that the insurance company cannot be permitted to challenge the validity of the policy on the ground of rebate of premium and such action would amount to deficiency of service on the part of the insurer. The counsel argued that any verification of NCB claim should have been made immediately after the issue of policy and not several months later, after the accident.
6. The State Commission has observed that the OP/National Insurance Company had taken a clear stand that no cover note has been issued by the previous insurer/United India Insurance Company in the name of the Complainant. The cover note no.602984 had been issued in the name of another person, Balwinder Singh for another vehicle, P.B.-13-2395. As this cover note was not issued in the name of the complainant, he was not entitled to NCB.
7. The above position gains support from the averment of the revision petitioner himself at page 4 of the complaint petition That instead of recovering the amount of no claim bonus, from the claim amount, you have illegally and wrongly repudiated the claim after backing out of your promise/representation, made at the time of getting the writing on 27/10/2004.
His letter mentioned above, is the one written by him on 27.10.2004 to the Divisional Manager of the respondent/OP. It says I am to inform you that the vehicle mentioned in your letter was our which we have sold latter on and purchased the above said vehicle and the benefit of NC was shifted on this New vehicle.
Thus, on the one hand, the stand of the complainant had continued to remain that even after sale of the previous vehicle, he was entitled to no claim bonus. On the other, he conceded that the amount of NCB was recoverable from him.
8. The State Commission has held that Although the insurer granting no claim bonus has right to write to the previous insurer within 21 days after grating the cover note, yet respondent no.1 cannot take any benefit of the same because in this case, respondent no.1 has fraudulently mis-represented the facts and fraudulently obtained the alleged cover note which was in the name of Balwinder Singh. Principle of equity is that who seeks equity must do the equity but respondent no.1 has not done so. Respondent no.1 has tried to cheat and misled the insurance company and claimed no claim bonus although he was not entitled for the same. As such, no benefit of this lapse of the insurance company can be extended to respondent no.1.
9. In our view, the decision of the State Commission is based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. The revision petitioner has failed to make out any case against the impugned order which could justify intervention of this Commission in exercise of the powers under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. No orders as to costs.
.Sd/-
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-.
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER s./-