Haryana

Kaithal

372/20

Ram Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Vikram Singh Nain

02 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.372/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 27.10.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:02.08.2023.

Ram Kumar age about 60 years, S/o Sh. Uday Bhan, R/o Advocate Colony, Ward No.4, Cheeka, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Ghagga Road, Samana District Patiala (Punjab)-147101 through it’s Branch Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Neela Bhawan Patiala (Punjab) through it’s Branch Manager.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Ambala Road, Kaithal through it’s Branch Manager. 

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Ankush Jindal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

                Complainant-Ram Kumar has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with the averments that the complainant got insured his truck bearing registration No.HR09-K-1697 with the OPs vide policy No.401408311910000665 valid for the period w.e.f. 23.01.2020 to 22.01.2021.  The said truck met with an accident on 10.02.2020 in the area of Bassi Pathana Mirinda Road, Punjab.  Information regarding accident was given to the OPs.  The complainant got repaired the said truck and incurred the amount of Rs.3,37,000/- as repair charges to Nain Trading Company, Vishwakarma Motor Workshop, Punjab Body Maker and others.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the necessary documents but the OPs repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 04.09.2020.  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Hence, this complaint is filed.     

2.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that at the time of renewal of insurance policy, the complainant has not disclosed that he had received claim on previous policy and concealing this fact, the complainant had taken 45% no claim bonus on the said policy and so, less premium was paid by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C16 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.           On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant got insured his truck bearing registration No.HR09-K-1697 with the OPs vide policy No.401408311910000665 valid for the period w.e.f. 23.01.2020 to 22.01.2021.  It is further argued that the said truck met with an accident on 10.02.2020 in the area of Bassi Pathana Mirinda Road, Punjab.  Information regarding accident was given to the OPs.  It is further argued that the complainant got repaired the said truck and incurred the amount of Rs.3,37,000/- as repair charges to Nain Trading Company, Vishwakarma Motor Workshop, Punjab Body Maker and others.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the necessary documents but the OPs repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 04.09.2020.  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant has not disclosed that he had received claim on previous policy and concealing this fact, the complainant had taken 45% no claim bonus on the said policy and so, less premium was paid by the complainant and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  The OPs have repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 04.09.2020 as per Annexure-C4 on the ground that “You have submitted wrong declaration to avail 45% NCB in your renewal policy which is a misrepresentation and breach of policy terms and conditions.”  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the OPs has also drawn our attention towards the policy as per Annexure-R1, wherein the complainant has taken the benefit of No claim Bonus as 45%.  In this regard, ld. counsel for the OPs has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Shiv Villas Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UII 2018(1) CLT 508 decided by Hon’ble National Commission and Anjani Gupta Vs. Future Generally India Insurance Co. 2018(2) CLT 89 decided by Hon’ble National Commission.  The said authorities are fully applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas the authority submitted by ld. counsel for the complainant titled as UII Vs. Sh. Jot Singh bearing first appeal No.145 of 2016 decided by Uttarakhand State Commission, Dehradun on 20.07.2022 is not distinguishable but the same is not applicable to the facts of instant case.  From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the complainant has not disclosed that he had received claim on previous policy and concealing this fact, the complainant had taken 45% no claim bonus on the policy in question.  Undisputedly, preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is benevolent in nature but it does not give any liberty to anyone who wants to take undue benefit of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

9.             Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of said order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.            

Announced in open court:

Dt.:02.08.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.