Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 534
Instituted on : 02.11.2018
Decided on : 07.12.2023
Hansrajaged about 57 years, s/o sh. Ram Chander r/o Village Pehrawar, District Rohtak
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. D-Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
- The Manager, Shri Krishna Honda, Rohtak/Shri Krishna Auto, Sonepat Stand, Rohtak.
…….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1988
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the complainant.
Dr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Pardeep Mittal Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that heissemi literate villager and is 7th class pass and he had purchased an Aviator Scooter no.HR-12AB-3407 on 08.08.2016 from the opposite party No.2. The respondentno.2 had got issued the insurance of the said scooter from IffcoTokio General Insurance Company on 08.08.2016 to 07.08.2017. The alleged scooter of the complainant had met with an accident near February 2017. The complainant got repaired the alleged scooter from the respondent no.2 and cashless facility was given by the respondent no.2 through the IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company. The insurance of the scooter was going to expire on 07.08.2017 therefore, the complainant sent his son for renewal of the insurance to the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 got the scooter insured through National Insurance Company i.e. respondent no.1 on 08.08.2017 to 07.08.2018,.The son of complainant was asked to deposit Rs.1789/- as insurance premium and no question was asked from Amit. The complainant as well as Amit never knew about the words NCB and the agent also did not ask anything about NCB. The alleged scooter met with an accident on 04.06.2018 and the same was given to the opposite party no.2 for repairs. Therespondent no.2 asked the complainant to pay Rs.13460/- as cashless facility was not given and the amount would be paid by the opposite party no.1 within few days. Complainant paid Rs.13460/- to the respondent no.2 on 12.06.2018 and got his scooter repaired. But the opposite party No.2 is denying to pay the amount of Rs.13460/- to the complainant as NCB was wrongly taken by the complainant. The complainant had no intention to obtain NCB of Rs.143/- illegally and as such the respondent no.1 is bound to pay the claim amount of Rs.13460/- after claiming Rs.143/- from the complainant.. Complainant requested the opposite party no.1 to pay the claim amount but to no effect. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to disburse the insurance claim of Rs.13460/-alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that no such information/intimation was given to the opposite party regarding the alleged accident of the vehicle by the complainant. It is further submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was met with an accident in February, 2017 whereas the insurance policy issued by the opposite party is for the period from 08.08.2017 to 07.08.2018, which clearly shows that the vehicle of the complainant was not insured with the answering respondent no.1 when the alleged accident was occurred. As per the complaint the alleged vehicle was damaged again on alleged date 04.06.2018 whereas as per Ex.C8 the date of alleged accident is 01.06.2018. The opposite party sent letters and reminders to the insured to provide the NCB certificate/letter from the previous insurance company but the insured never provided the same and the claim file of the insured was closed, hence the claim was repudiated. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that at the time of insurance the agent of the company asked from the customer whether any claim had earlier been taken by them or not.The complainant denied the same and thus benefit of NCB was given to the complainant in this policy. The dispute is between complainant and respondent no.1. The opposite party has been unnecessarily dragged in this complaint. It is further, submitted that in the month of June 2018 the vehicle of the complainant came in the workshop of the answering respondent under accidental position and the same was repaired by the answering respondent and charged an amount of Rs.13460/-from the complainant for the repair of the vehicle of complainant. The opposite party has no concern with the claim of the vehicle of complainant as the vehicle was insured by respondent no.1. It is also submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 29.05.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, document Ex.R1/1 and also tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/C in additional evidence and has closed his evidence on dated 01.12.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.RW2/B to Ex.RW2/C and has closed his evidence on dated 18.12.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party No.1 vide its letter dated 27.11.2018 placed on record as Ex.C8 on the ground that : “No claim bonus was found wrong, whereas the claim was filed in the previous policy”. In this regard we have perused the policy Ex.C2 minutely. In the schedule of premium the opposite party has given 20% NCB benefit to the complainant. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, it is submitted that he and his son aresemi-literate persons and do not know about the NCB and at the time of depositing the insurance premium, no question was asked by the agent from the son of complainant. There was no intention of complainant or his son to take the benefit of NCB from the opposite party No.1.
7. From the documents placed on record by both the parties it is observed that complainant has taken the benefit of NCB of Rs.143/- only whereas as per tax invoice Ex.C5, he has spent an amount of Rs.13460/- on the repair of vehicle. In this regard, ld. counsel for the complainant has pleaded that merely availing of NCB does not disentitle the complainant from the whole claim amount. We have also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.19836 of 2016 titled as National Insurance Co. Vs. Naresh Kumar whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has submitted that: “In cases of the insured taking the insurance policy of the vehicle from new insurance company and it is established that the insured by making wrongful declaration has taken benefit of No Claim Bonus, his insurance claim would be reduced proportionately” and Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh in IV(2009)CPJ 365 titled Gurdeep Kaur Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. has also held that: “If any amount claimed by complainant during subsistence of earlier insurance policy, then same to be deducted from present insurance claim-Repudiation of entire claim only on the ground of false statement of NCB highly unjustified”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances it is observed that the repudiation of whole claim by the opposite party No.1 on the ground of availing the benefit of NCB is illegal and as such complainant is entitled for the claim amount after deducting the proportionate amount of 20% claim. Hence he is entitled for Rs.10768/-(Rs.13460/- less Rs.2692/-(20%).
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the claim amount of Rs.10768/-(Rupees ten thousand seven hundred and sixty eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.02.11.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.12.2023.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
.........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
