Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/624/2014

Reliance Gen. Ins. Company Ltd. through Regional Claim Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jitendra Singh s/o Narpat Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Virendra Agarwal

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

APPEAL NO: 624 /2014

 

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Through Regional Claim Manager, Maker Tower,Vaishali Nagar, Queens Road,Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Jitendra Singh s/o Narpat Singh r/o House No. 31, Sundar Nagar, Chand Bihari Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 1.12.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal-Member

 

Mr.Jitendra Mitruka for Mr.Virendra Agarwal counsel for the appellant

Mr.Rupesh Kushwaha counsel for the respondent

 

2

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur ^4th dated 14.3.2014 by which it allowed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant had taken an insurance of his vehicle from the appellant insurance company which was effective from 10.6.2009 to 9.6.2010. His vehicle was stolen on 4.9.2009 from Sirsi Road, Jaipur. He immediately lodged a police complaint and the vehicle was not traceable. The complainant filed a theft claim with the insurance company which was repudiated on the ground that at the time of taking the insurance the complainant had concealed the fact that he had availed the benefit of 'No claim bonus' from the company with which the vehicle was previously insured. The appellant company submitted that concealing the material fact is breach of condition of the policy hence, no claim was payable. However, the learned DCF did not accept the contention and allowed the complaint.

 

 

3

 

We have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

 

We are of the view that contention of the appellant company is not acceptable on various grounds. It was the duty of the company under General Motor Tariff to verify within one month from issuing the policy from the previous company whether any claim had been lodged under the policy. The appellant company did not enquire from the previous company about this fact. Secondly, whether the complainant had made any declaration that he had not lodged any claim under the previous policy is not on record and is not proved. Unless the appellant company can show that complainant had intentionally filed wrong declaration, no breach of condition of the policy can be assumed. Thirdly, the appellant company has not pur on record the fact of verification from the previous company. The letter produced by the appellant company Anx. 5 states that they had called the NCB confirmation from the previous insurer ICICI Lombard and claim was lodged under the previous policy but there is no letter of the ICICI Lombard produced on record. How the fact was verified from the previous company is not proved.

 

4

 

In view of this we do not wish to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned DCF and the appeal is dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Sunita Ranka) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm