State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Iqbal Singh Sandhu vs The Manager, United India Insurance ... on 11 September, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1282 of 2007.
Date of Institution: 18.09.2007.
Date of Decision: 11.09.2012.
Sh. Iqbal Singh Sandhu S/o Sh. Sardul Singh Sandhu, Resident of House
No.1, Bye Pass, Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran.
.....Appellant.
Versus
The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Tarn Taran.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
24.07.2007 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate, proxy for Sh. R.K. Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Sh. Iqbal Singh Sandhu, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 24.07.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondent, making averments that he purchased a Maruti Car 800-CC bearing registration no.PB-02-K-0080, Engine No.1197698 and Chassis No.SB308-IN-796235 and the same was insured with the respondent for the period 01.12.2004 to 30.11.2005 for a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- and the premium was paid. Cover note bearing no.117705 was issued. First Appeal No.1282 of 2007 2
3. On 27.01.2005, son of the appellant went to ICICI Bank, SCO No.112 for his duty and the car was parked outside the bank and when his son after doing his duty came out of the bank, the car was missing. His son Abhayjit Singh tried to locate the car, but could not and on the next day, the appellant got registered an FIR dated 28.01.2005 bearing no.19 at Police Station, Civil Lines, but the car has not been traced. When the police and the appellant could not trace the car, then the appellant filed the insurance claim with the respondent, by moving a written application dated 08.02.2005, but the respondent refused to release the insurance amount vide letter dated 20.03.2006. The official of the respondent insurance company namely Nitin Sharma completed all the formalities and information of the loss of the vehicle was also given to him verbally on 28.01.2005, but no amount was released.
4. It was prayed that the respondent be directed to release the insurance amount along with interest and to pay compensation for mental tension, harassment to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac and litigation expenses Rs.5,000/-.
5. In the written reply filed on behalf of the respondent, the preliminary objections were taken hat the appellant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true facts and the complaint is not maintainable. It was admitted that the package policy was obtained by the appellant of his vehicle bearing no.PB-02-K-0080 which was valid from 09.12.2004 to 08.12.2005 and Rs.2623/- was paid as premium and comprehensive policy of the vehicle, after getting 50% 'No Claim Bonus', was issued. Out of total premium of Rs.3510/-, after deducting 50% as 'No Claim Bonus' i.e. Rs.1755/-, the remaining premium was obtained amounting to Rs.1755/- plus liability risk Rs.500/-, personal accident Rs.100/- driver risk Rs.25/- and service tax Rs.243/-.
6. The appellant claimed 'No Claim Bonus', by concealing the fact that earlier to this policy, he has not obtained any claim regarding the car no.PB-02-K-0080 from the insurance company, whereas it came to the notice First Appeal No.1282 of 2007 3 of the respondent that prior to the policy, the claim has been obtained by the appellant and he was not entitled to 'No Claim Bonus', as given in the present policy and he has violated the Condition GR-27(f) and has misled the insurance company and is not entitled to any claim. The appellant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint.
7. On merits, similar pleas as taken in the preliminary objections were repeated. It was further pleaded that after the intimation, the investigation was conducted and it was found that the appellant has earlier also claimed the insurance amount and claimed 'No Claim Bonus' in the present policy and his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 20.03.2006. Other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that document Ex.R-2 confirms the factum of obtaining of 50% 'No Claim Bonus' and this letter was signed by none other than the appellant. The inquiry conducted by the respondent reveals that the appellant has taken the claim during the period 02.12.2003 to 01.12.2004 i.e. in the previous insurance policy. The appellant has clearly obtained 50% 'No Claim Bonus' and he has also claimed the insurance amount of his car in the previous year and this fact was not told to the officials of the respondent at the time of taking the present policy. There was no illegality in the repudiation of the claim, and dismissed the complaint.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.07.2007, the appellant has come up in appeal.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
First Appeal No.1282 of 2007 4
12. Neither the counsel for the respondent nor anybody else appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time of arguments.
13. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and the respondent insurance company was also duty bound to find out if the appellant has lodged any claim during the period of previous policy, but that was not done and the order of the District Forum is one-sided and is liable to be set aside.
14. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and have carefully examined the entire record placed on the file.
15. Ex.R-2 is the 'Additional Questionnaire for Motor Proposal With Break' and the same is signed by the appellant in English and from the signatures itself, it can be made out that the appellant is well versed with English language, but in the first Para itself, he declared as follows:-
"There has been no accident to my/our vehicle since the last policy expires on date given above till now".
Lastly, it was declared that the rate of 50% 'No Claim Bonus' claimed by him is correct and 'No Claim Bonus' has arisen in the expiring policy. It was further undertaken 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.
16. Ex.R-3 is the letter of the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran, wherein, one claim was reported under the policy which was valid from 02.12.2003 to 01.12.2004. Ex.C-7 is the repudiation letter issued by the respondent, vide which the claim preferred by the appellant was repudiated.
17. The insurance contract is a contract of utmost good faith and whosoever conceals the material facts, is not entitled to claim any benefit. The appellant himself obtained 'No Claim Bonus', declaring that earlier he has not claimed any amount in the previous policy and he was given the benefit of First Appeal No.1282 of 2007 5 'No Claim Bonus' to the extent of 50% in the premium amount, whereas he had already received the claim earlier in the previous policy and he was not entitled to claim 'No Claim Bonus' in the present policy, but he concealed the true facts and violated the Condition No.GR-27(f) of IMT. The order of the District Forum is a detailed and speaking one and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
18. Sequel to the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant, being without any merit, is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 24.07.2007 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
19. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 03.09.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member September 11, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)