AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prem Narain, J
Proxy counsel Mr Sidharth Iyer appears on behalf of the main counsel for the petitioner who has filed the authority letter from the main counsel Mr Rajat Khattry.
Heard.
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 4th February 2016 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 1211 of 2011.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent took an insurance of the vehicle from 02.11.2008 to 01.11.2009 from the petitioner insurance company on the basis of a policy allegedly issued by the United India Insurance Company that was valid from 02.11.2007 to 01.11.2008. The said vehicle was stolen on the intervening night on 03/04/11/2008. An FIR was lodged on 04.11.2008 at local police station. It is the contention of the petitioner that the insurance company was informed after 50 days of the incident, i.e., on 24.12.2008. The matter was got investigated by the insurance company and it was found that the policy given by the complainant was fake as informed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Consequently, repudiation letter was issued on 26.05.2010.
Aggrieved by the repudiation the complainant filed a consumer complaint being complaint no.282 of 2010 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum III, Lucknow ('the District Forum'). The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on the same grounds as mentioned in the repudiation letter. However, the District Forum, allowed the complaint for payment of IDV of the vehicle along with interest. The petitioner/ opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum. Hence, the present revision petition.
I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that only on two grounds the claim has been repudiated. The first ground was that the earlier policy shown by the complainant which was valid from 02.11.2007 to 01.11.2008 was found to be a forged policy, in the investigation report as well as on the basis of the letter issued by the United India Insurance Company dated 24.02.2010. The second point was that the intimation of theft was given after 50 days, i.e., on 24.12.2008 and therefore, both the fora below had passed and erroneous orders which cannot be sustained as per law.
Learned counsel for the complainant states that the intimation of the theft was given to the Insurance Company on their toll free number on the very next day of the theft. This fact has been accepted by the State Commission. Moreover, the District Forum has not accepted the contention of the Insurance Company in this regard as the opposite party could not show any clause of the policy that was violated. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the intimation of theft was given after 50 days to the insurance company.
The learned counsel has further mentioned that the veracity of the letter dated 24.02.2010 issued by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., has not been proved before the District Forum and therefore, this letter cannot be relied upon. He further states that the fora below have given concurrent findings and the scope under the Revision petition is very limited.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the material on record. It is true that generally, if there is a concurrent finding of fact by the Fora below, this Commission does not like to interfere with the findings of facts. However, in the present case the claim has been passed on the basis of a wrong and forged policy from another insurance company and the fact is that the vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company from 12.12.2006 to 11.12.2007 and after that there was no insurance of the vehicle and that is why he got a new forged policy that was produced, having a validity from 02.11.2007 to 01.11.2008 which was issued by the United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Even if the matter regarding delay in intimation to the insurance company is not considered, the factum of submission of forged policy by the complainant to get a new policy cannot be ignored. It is a serious matter and the chances are that either the vehicle had met with an accident before 02.11.2009 or complainant forged to get a new policy without mentioning the fact that there was no policy for that year. Though during the course of the arguments before this Commission it has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant that the authenticity of the letter from the United India Insurance Company Limited has not been verified from the investigator in any way and the fact is that neither the investigator nor any officer of United India Insurance Company has filed any affidavit to prove this letter. It is seen that this fact is mentioned in the repudiation letter and the complaint has been filed after the repudiation letter was issued by the complainant. However, no denial of this fact is mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant, therefore, it is implied that the complainant agreed with the allegations made in the repudiation letter. The District Forum has allowed the complaint on the basis that it was the duty of the insurance company to verify the policy submitted by the complainant at the initial stage. However the insurance contract is of utmost good faith and the complainant has filed a forged policy, therefore, I do not agree with the observation of the District Forum which is confirmed by the State Commission. Under the India Motor Tariff if a person claims 'no claim benefit' in the subsequent policy then the insurance company is duly required to verify the insurance policy on the basis of which 'no claim benefit' has been claimed, within a period of thirty days. In the present case, no question of 'no claim benefit' is involved, however this is just to demonstrate that even in that case 30 days time is granted to the Insurance Company and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be expected to verify the earlier policy before issuing the new policy. The policy was issued from the date of expiry of the earlier policy submitted, therefore, the insurance company could not have verified before the issuance date.
Based on the above discussion, the present revision petition no.1320 of 2016 is allowed and the orders of the Fora below dated 05.05.2011 and 04.02.2016 are set aside and the complaint is dismissed.