District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.165/2020.
Date of Institution:16.06.2020.
Date of Order: 12.02.2024.
Rajesh Tomer, aged about 46 years son of late Shri Sant Ram, resident of House No. 548, Sector30, Faridabad, District Faridabad. Aadhar Card No. 4265 4444 96376, Mobile No.. 99110020035.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Future Generally Insurance Company Limited, 6th floor, Tower-3, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400 013 through its Chairman/Director/Principal Officer.
2. M/s. Future Generally Insurance Company limited, 11th floor, Unit NO. 1101, Aggarwal Corporate Height, Plot NO.7, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034 through its Chairman/Director/Principal Officer.
3. M/s. Future Generally Insurance Company Limited, 2nd floor, SCO No. 89, Shopping Complex, HUDA Staff Colony, Sector-16, Faridabad – 121002 through its Chairman/Director/Principal Officer.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Complainant in person.
Sh. Sanjeev Bansal, , counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was absolute Regd. Owner of his vehicle i.e Honda BR-V car No. HR-51/BR-8739 having its chasis No. H4003022 and engine No. A11710375 Model 2017. The complainant got insured his above said vehicle with the opposite party company vide insurance policy NO. V6741801 valid from 25.11.2019 to midnight of 24.11.2020 to the name of the complainant, for an amount of Rs.8,16,000/- and for which the complainant paid premium amount of Rs.16,600/- to the opposite parties through cheque No. 446234 dated 20.11.2019 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Faridabad. Previously the above said vehicle of the complainant was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited bearing insurance policy NO. 3001/HA-100258742/00/000 valid for the period from 25.11.2018 to 24.11.2019 and all the details thereof were disclosed in the proposal form of the opposite party and also the complainant disclosed regarding last claims availed by him. The representative of the opposite parties calculated the premium amount on the proposal form of the opposite parties. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued insurance policy No. V6741801 to the name of the complainant in respect of above said vehicle. A the time of issuing the above said insurance policy, the opposite parties mentioned discount on account of NCB as mentioned in the insurance policy, but infact they did not deduct the said amount in the proposal form and hence the opposite parties had played a fraud with the complainant by showing different figures in the insurance policy as well as in the proposal form. It was pertinent to mention that in the proposal form, the opposite parties did not less any
amount of NCB. On 28th November 2019, the above said vehicle of the complainant met with a major accident, due to which the said vehicle became damaged. The complainant engaged the crane on 30.11.2019 and sent his damaged vehicle to Classic Honda, Faridabad, being authorized service centre of Honda Vehicles. At that time the said service centre prepared the estimate on account of repairs etc. at Rs.2,50,000/- approximately. The complainant immediately informed the opposite parties about the same and even the above said Classic Honda, Faridabad also informed the opposite parties vide Claim No. CM093903. The complainant became shocked to know from the opposite parties when they issued letter dated 02.01.2020 to the name of the complainant, vide which they ha declined the claim of the complainant, alleging therein that the insurance policy was issued with 20% NCB. The complainant informed the opposite parties through e-mails as well as in writing, so many times, with a request to release the payment of claimed amount of the complainant, but it was the opposite parties who did not pay any heed towards legitimate requests of the complainant and had cheated the complainant and had ignored the information provided by the complainant to the opposite party on the proposal form. The opposite parties had also mentioned in their proposal form all the details of previous insurance policy so the question of non-disclosing of NCB by the complainant did not arise at all.The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pass the claim of the complainant on account of damages of the vehicle/car make Honda BR-V bearing its registration NO. HR-51-BR-8739 on the basis of insurance policy No. V6741801 valid from 25.11.2019 to midnight of 24.11.2020 immediately.
b) pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant had obtained the policy in question by way of fraud, misrepresentation and concealing the true and material facts because at the time of receiving of the proposal for providing the insurance coverage of the vehicle in question, the complainant had himself disclosed that he had not taken any claim in previous policy and on the submitting of the said declaration the answering opposite party had provided NCB of 20% at the time of issuance of the policy. It was submitted that as per Indian Motor Tarrif Act after issuing the policy and granted NCB the letter sent to the previous insurance for confirmation of the NCB and letter had sent to the previous insurer i.e M/s. ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Ltd. Where in the previous year the complainant had obtained a policy No. 3001/HA-100258742/00/000 and found that there was a claim history on the previous policy of the complainant. As such complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance of condition No.8. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Future Generalli & Others with the prayer to: a) pass the claim of the complainant on account of damages of the vehicle/car make Honda BR-V bearing its registration NO. HR-51-BR-8739 on the basis of insurance policy No.
V6741801 valid from 25.11.2019 to midnight of 24.11.2020 immediately. b)pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Rajesh Tomar, Ex.C-1 – proposal form, Ex.C-2 – insurance policy cum payment receipt, Ex.C-3 – demanded repairs and repair instructions, Ex.C-4 – letter dated 28.12.2019 regarding No claim Bonus Recovery Amount, Ex.C-5 – Closure letter dated 30.12.2019,, Ex.C-6 – letter dated 30.12.2019, Ex.C-7 – email dated 02.01.2020,, Ex.C-8 – letter dated 04.01.2020, Ex.C-9 – letter dated 06.01.2020, Ex.C-10 to C-12 – emails,, Ex.C-13 – legal notice, Ex.C-14 to C-16 – postal receipts,, Ex.C-17 Ex.C-18 – Tax invoice – tax invoice, Ex.C-19 – email dated 19.11.2021, Ex.C-20 – bill dated 04.12.2020, Ex.C-21 – Bill/Cash memo dated 03.01.2021,, Ex.C-22 – bill/cash memo dated 03.01.2021
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.R/A – affidavit of Masiruddin Shaikh Assistant Manager and authorized representative in the Corporate Office of Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. at 801 and 802, 8th floor, Tower C, Embassy 24 * 7 Park, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli – West, Mumbai, Maharashtra and also had a branch office a 303-310, Kailash Building, 26 K.G.Marg, New Delhi.
6. After going through the evidence led by the opposite parties, opposite parties have failed to prove their case. Opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of condition No.8 of the policy. Opposite parties never submitted any of the documents of 20% deduction of the previous policy with ICICI Lombard. Opposite parties have also failed to prove the damage
of vehicle and report of surveyor of the damage vehicle. Merely, an affidavit submitted by Shri Masiruddin Shaikh, Assistant Manager and authorized representative in the Corporate Office of Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. at 801 and 802, 8th floor, Tower C, Embassy 24 * 7 Park, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli – West, Mumbai, Maharashtra and also had a branch office a 303-310, Kailash Building, 26 K.G.Marg, New Delhi in which it has been mentioned that surveyor namely Sharfe Alam, who submitted his report with the company of the opposite parties on 23.12.2019 and assess the loss of Rs.1,75,998/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. As per the complaint or legal notice, the complainant loss was 2,50,000/- and NCB of 20% was taken at the time of issuing of policy. As per the surveyor report the loss was approx.1,75,998/-. as per the affidavit of Masiruddin Shaikh, Assistant Manager and Authorized representative in the Corporate Office of future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.. As per the settled law of Ld. Supreme court of India , surveyor report is the final one. Hence, the repudiation is not justified. In the interest of justice, the complaint is allowed on non standard basis.
Estimate loss : Rs..2,50,000.00
Surveyor report : Rs.1,75,998.00
Deduction 20% NON STD : (Rs.2,50,000/- x 20%)
=Rs.50,000/-
Total : Rs.2,50,000/- - 50,000/-
= Rs.2,00,000/-
7. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3, jointly & severally, are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 12.02.2024. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
