BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.198/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 21^st December 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                   

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri. Devakumar,M.C.                           

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in service and seeking direction to pay the repair charges of the vehicle Rs.75,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the deficiency in service, negligence and Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation.
2.     The complainant’s car insured with opposite party, damaged in an accident with another vehicle, during the policy period.  A sum of Rs.75,000/- has been incurred towards repairs.  The claim form with all relevant documents submitted to opposite party, preferring the expenses for repairs.  The opposite party repudiated the claim.  The opposite party failed to reply to the legal notice nor paid the claim amount.  Hence, the aggrieved alleged deficiency in service and filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party denying the allegations filed their version and admits the issue of insurance policy in respect of complainant’s vehicle.  The policy was valid between 31.07.2016 to 30.07.2017.  The vehicle is of 2012 model vehicle.  The complainant had previously preferred a own damage from his previous insurer and suppressing the same, availed the benefit of NCB and reduction in premium amount of Rs.9,204.44, even though he was not entitled.  The fact was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 07.09.2016.  Hence, the allegation is denied and prays for dismissal of the complaint. 
4.      Both parties lead evidence by filing affidavits and relied on several documents.  Written arguments filed and heard the respective counsels.  Perused the material on record and posted the matter for orders.     
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes deficiency in service by opposite party, in not settling the claims under the policy and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?
2. What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order, for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant, owner of Maruthi Suzuki ZDI car bearing registration No.KA-55-M-4524 had insured his vehicle with opposite party.  The policy bearing No.S939151 was valid upto 30.07.2017.
8.    The said car met with an accident, on 27.04.2017, with another vehicle and damaged severally.  A claim was made with opposite party, seeking reimbursement of repair charges of the vehicle amounting to Rs.70,000/-.
9.    The opposite party repudiated the claim preferred by the complainant for suppressing the facts relating to the claims preferred with the previous insurer.  The complainant alleged the repudiation, as deficiency in service and filed the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
10. The opposite party admitted the issue of insurance policy in respect of complainant’s vehicle which is valid from 31.07.2016 to 30.07.2017.  The said vehicle was of 2012 model.  The complainant earlier had an insurance coverage for his car from M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., and had preferred an own damage claim from them, in respect of the earlier accident occurred.  The complainant suppressed the earlier claims and availed “No claim bonus” and thereby the opposite party gave reduction of Rs.9,204.44 in the premium amount towards the present policy.  Later, the opposite party came to know about the earlier claims and false declaration by the complainant and communicated the facts relating to the non-entitlement for “No claim bonus”.  Vide letter dated 07.09.2016 and requested for deposit of Rs.5,822/-, the shortfall of premium towards the policy coverage, in 21 days and also to present the vehicle for inspection.  It was also intimated that upon failure to pay the balance premium amount, the policy coverage period would be reduced as per prevailing procedure.  The complainant failed to oblige to the request, thereby the policy validity period has been reduced and the policy was valid between 31.06.2016 to 03.03.2017 and the amended insurance policy was also forwarded to the complainant.
11. The complainant preferred claim, relating to the damage caused in the accident occurred on 27.04.2017, which is after the lapse of policy coverage period, hence the claim has been repudiated.  Thereby, the allegation of deficiency in service is denied and they are not liable to pay any compensation and damages.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
12. On perusal of the pleadings, material evidence and the arguments addressed by the respective counsels, the opposite party had issued insurance policy in respect of complainant’s car bearing No.KA-55-M-4524 valid for a period between 31.07.2016 to 30.07.2017.  The complainant availed the “No claim bonus” benefit from opposite party, declaring that he had not preferred any claim from the earlier insurer. On preferring a claims for the repair charges in respect of the car, the opposite party, on investigation came to know that, the complainant had preferred a claim from the earlier insurer and had suppressed the facts, while taking policy from opposite party.  Thereby, vide letter dated 07.09.2016, called the complainant to make good the shortfall of premium to provide insurance coverage upto 30.07.2017. But, failed to pay the balance premium amount within stipulated period, as such, the opposite party reduced the policy coverage period upto 03.03.2017 only.  The accident occurred on 27.04.2017 i.e., after the lapse of policy coverage period.  Hence, the opposite party repudiated the claims preferred.  In view of the same, repudiation of the claims by opposite party for violation, is justified.  As such, we opine the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
13. Point No.2:- with the above discussions, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed and the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought.  Hence the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 21^st December 2018)