- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Anjani Gupta Petitio... v. Future Generally Ind...
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1051 OF 2017
(Against the Order dated 03/02/2017 in Appeal No. 856/2016 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. ANJANI GUPTA
S/O. SRI SHYAM GUPTA, R/O. 34, SRI SAI CITY I.I.M
ROAD,
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. FUTURE GENERALLY INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
THROUGH THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE LEGAL CLAIM,
BRANCH OFFICE UNIT NO. 404, RATAN SQUARE,
VIDHAN SABHA ROAD,
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate Dated : 12 Dec 2017
ORDER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
The complainant/petitioner owned a car which he had got registered with the respondent. The said car having met with an accident, a claim was lodged by the petitioner/complainant with the insurer. A surveyor was appointed to assess the loss to the complainant and he assessed the said loss at Rs.1,20,338/-. The claim however, was not paid since the petitioner/complainant had wrongfully obtained a No Claim Bonus of 25% from the insurer, whereas in fact he had already taken a claim in the previous year, from another insurer. Being aggrieved from the non-payment of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the ground that the complainant had played a fraud upon it by obtaining a No Claim Bonus which was not legally admissible to him, he already having taken a claim in the previous year, in respect of the same vehicle.
3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 17.03.2016, allowed the claim and directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.4,37,557.75 to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 03.02.2017, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of the
1
complaint, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
4. The legal issue involved in this petition is no more res-integra the same having already been decided by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in RP No.1836 of 2016, Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar decided on 20.02.2017. The Three-Members Bench took the following view in the above referred matter:
"a. The cases in which it is established that the insured by making wrongful declaration has taken benefit of No Claim Bonus and the insurer had means to verify the correctness of the declaration of the insured seeking No Claim Bonus by exercising ordinary diligence of verifying the truthfulness of the claim from the insurer's own record, Exception to 19 of Indian Contract Act would come into play and the insurer would not be justified in repudiating the insurance claim on the ground of misrepresentation or concealment of fact. However, because the insured had taken benefit of No Claim Bonus and paid less premium, the insurance claim would be reduced proportionately.
b. 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 and where the insurer had failed to seek confirmation regarding correctness of the declaration submitted by the insured in support of plea for No Claim Bonus within the stipulated period as provided in GR 27 of Indian Motor Tariff, the insurer would not be justified in repudiating the insurance claim. However, because the insured had taken benefit of No Claim Bonus by making false declaration his insurance claim would be reduced proportionately." It would therefore be seen that if No Claim Bonus is wrongfully taken by the insured, the claim would still be payable on a non-standard basis, if the insurer had the means to verify the correctness of the declaration made by the insured, while claiming the No Claim Bonus. In the present case also, the respondent had an opportunity to verify the correctness or otherwise of the declaration made by the petitioner/complainant by making necessary enquiry from the concerned insurer. That having not been done, the complainant is entitled to reimbursement of the loss sustained by him, subject of course to proportionate deduction. Since the No Claim Bonus was availed by the complainant @ 25%, the amount payable to the complainant/petitioner has to be reduced in the same proportion.
5. A perusal of the survey report would show that the surveyor had assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs.1,20,338/-. The complainant/petitioner is therefore, entitled to 75% of the assessed amount of Rs.1,20,338/-. The revision petition is therefore, disposed of by directing the respondent to pay 75% of Rs.1,20,338/- to the complainant/petitioner within four weeks from today alongwith interest on that amount @ 8% per annum from the date on which the consumer complaint was filed. The revision petition stands disposed of.
......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
2
Alert