AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ON 18.01.2006, Shri Bhupinder Singh, Complainant/respondent in this revision petition, purchased a 2004 Model, Second Hand Elantra Car from its previous owner, United Auto Wheels and got the registration and insurance transfer in his own name. The complainant obtained insurance from petitioner/OP, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., for the period running from 25.08.2006 to 24.08.2007 and he availed benefit of 25% of ''No-Claim '' Bonus from the OP/petitioner while taking the policy.
ON 22.09.2006, the complainant lodged claim for damage with the OP on 29.09.2006. The OP, vide its letter dated 01.02.2007, repudiated the claim of the respondent on the ground of wrongly availing ''No-Claim '' Bonus @ 25% on renewal of policy. Thereafter, on 02.06.2007, the said car was stolen and the complainant lodged FIR and intimated the OP/respondent. The complainant also lodged claim with the OP. However, OP repudiated the claim vide letter dated 11.02.2008 in which it was explained that the previous claim lodged by the respondent with regard to own damage reported on 29.09.2006 in respect of the same car was repudiated by the OP Company vide their letter dated 01.02.2008 on the ground of wrongly availing of ''No-Claim '' Bonus @ 25% on renewal of policy due to which Section 24VB was violated by the respondent. Consequently, they also repudiated the 2nd claim as well.
ON 13.03.2008, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Fathegarh Sahib. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner for payment of cost of the car, i.e., Rs.7,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft of the car and Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000/- as litigation costs.
AN Appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the Appeal and reduced the interest rate from 9% to 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation, till realisation. It also set aside the order awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed by the respondent/OP. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that prior to lodging the present theft claim, the complainant also lodged one ''own-damage claim '' reported on 29.09.2006 in respect of the same vehicle which was repudiated by OP vide their letter dated 01.02.2007 on the ground of wrongly availing ''No-Claim '' Bonus @ 25% on renewal of policy, whereas it was clear that after the previous cover note, the vehicle had been transferred and as such, the respondent was not entitled for any ''No-Claim '' Bonus on renewal of policy as he had misrepresented the policy facts to avail the benefit. Counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention towards repudiation letter dated 01.02.2007, which runs as follows:- "UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE OPP.MAIN BUS STOP, KHANNA PH 01628-227708 FAX. 01628-226122 "WITHOUT PREJUDICE " Ref : Motor Claims : 2006 Dated: 1st Feb., 2007 Sh. Bhupinder Singh H.No. 1210/1, Sector 33C Chandigarh (UT) Sir, Reg : Accident of vehicle No.CH-03Q-0145 Insured Under Policy no. 200600/31/06/01/00001010 A/c yourselves. Your above-said claim reported on dated 29.09.2006 in which M/s. Lajpat Rai and Co. were deputed for the assessment of the loss. You have availed the NCB @ 25% on renewal of policy whereas it is observed that after the submission of previous cover note/insurance that the vehicle has been transferred and you are not entitled for NCB on renewal of policy and have mis-represented the policy facts to avail the benefit of NCB. So, keeping in view of the above, we are Repudiated your claim as the compliance of 64VB is not confirmed herewith. Sd/- Authorised Signatory ".
THE learned counsel for the respondent did not pick up a conflict with this letter. He also did not dispute that he had availed ''No-Claim '' Bonus @ 25%. The people must speak truth while making claim before the insurance company. They are supposed not to suppress the facts, like in the present case. However, in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, 2008 CTJ 680 (Supreme Court) (CP), there was a case of ''theft '' and the consumer had violated the terms of the policy by insuring the car for ''personal '' use, but actually, used the same for ''commercial '' purpose, as a ''Taxi ''. The State Commission directed the insurance company to settle the claim on ''non-standard '' basis. The Hon ''ble Apex Court has in same case laid down that in case of theft of a vehicle, the breach of condition is not germane and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the respondent. 9. Consequently, we follow this authority and modify the order of the State Commission and direct the insurance Company to settle the claim on ''non-standard '' basis and pay 75% of the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- minus No Claim Basis. The complainant will pay 9% interest on "No Claim Basis ''. The complainant is granted no interest at all for the said misrepresentation. The OP/petitioner is directed to pay the residue amount, within 45 days, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a, till the date of realization.