VISHNU BHAGWAN MITTAL vs BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

The challenge in this revision petition has been made by the petitioner/complainant Vishnu Bhagwan Mittal to the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission), in two appeals, Appeal No. 229/2010, Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Vishnu Bhagwan Mittal and Appeal No. 243/2010, Vishnu Bhagwan Mittal vs. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., vide which, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh on 24.05.2010 in Consumer Complaint No. 1419/2009, filed by the present petitioner, was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner/complainant got his car bearing registration no. PB 27C 2559 insured with the opposite party, Insurance Company for the period from 22.02.2009 to 21.02.2010 for an Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs. 5,50,620/-. The said car was found missing/stolen on 12.04.2009 at about 3.15 pm, while it was parked outside flat no. 3114, Alok Vihar-I, Sector-50, Noida, U.P. The matter was reported to the local police, which registered FIR No. 87 dated 12.04.2009 at Police Station Sector-49, Noida. The theft was also reported to the Insurance Company and claim was filed with them for processing the same. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that in the proposal form for obtaining the insurance cover in question, the complainant wrongly stated that he had not made any claim with the earlier insurer. He was, therefore, not eligible for the No Claim Bonus (NCB) for the renewed policy. The complainant, however, took the plea that he never filled the proposal form, rather it was done by the opposite party no. 2, Sh. Lawakush, Sales Officer of the opposite party, Insurance Company. The said opposite party no. 2 visited the premises of the complainant on 03.02.2009 and took information and documents including a copy of the cover note of the expiring Insurance policy from the staff of the complainant and filled the relevant documents for the renewal of the policy. The opposite party no. 2 also forged signatures when he was away from his office and got the new policy issued after collecting the cheque for the premium in question. The said policy was issued, however, after about two months of filling the proposal form and collection of the premium. The opposite party no. 1 could have verified the details of the earlier insurance policy from the previous insurer Reliance General Insurance Company. The complainant stated in his consumer complaint that the opposite party no. 1 had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service towards them while repudiating the claim for the theft of the vehicle and issuing the policy without verifying the correct facts. The complainant sought directions to the opposite party no. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 5,50,620/- to them being the IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 15% per annum on the said amount and further to pay Rs. 1 lakh for compensation towards mental harassment/agony, Rs. 2 lakhs for punitive damages and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.

The complaint was resisted by the the opposite parties by filing a written statement before the District Forum in which they stated that the complainant had wrongly mentioned in the proposal form that he was entitled to the No Claim Bonus. It had been clearly stipulated in the NCB declaration clause of the policy that in case of wrong declaration all benefits under the policy shall stand forfeited. The opposite parties asserted that the complainant had himself put signatures on the proposal form and thereafter he handed over a cheque for Rs. 10,183/- as payment of premium. The policy in question was issued by the opposite parties on the basis of the information being given in the proposal form and the declaration signed by him.

The District Forum, after taking into account the contentions raised by the parties, allowed the complaint and stated that a sum of R. 4,06,215/-, which is 75% of IDV of Rs. 5,41,620/- shall be payable for the claim on non-standard basis as full and final settlement and a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- shall be payable as compensation against mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. Being aggrieved against this order, the complainant as well as the Insurance Company challenged the same by way of separate appeals before the State Commission. Vide impugned order, the appeal filed by the complainant has been dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the Insurance Company has been accepted with the directions that the complainant may approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of complex, disputed and complicated issues/facts. Being aggrieved against this order, the complainant is before us by way of the present revision petition.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments that the order passed by the District Forum, allowing the claim on a non-standard basis was in accordance with law and should be upheld. He stated that the complainant did not put his signatures on the proposal form and hence, the allegation of making false declaration could not be leveled against the complainant. The learned counsel vehemently argued that there was no nexus between the theft of the vehicle and the payment of less premium to the Insurance Company. The action of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim in total was, therefore, not justified on any ground.

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, stated that the view taken by the State Commission that the parties should go to the Civil Court to get the complex questions of facts adjudicated was in order and hence, the present petitions should be dismissed. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Munimahesh Patel, (2006) 7 SCC 655 and the order made by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 4470/2014, decided on 02.01.2015, Sh. Inder Pal Rana vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , in support of his arguments.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

The only issue that merits consideration in the present case is whether the insurance claim made by the complainant with regard to the theft of the vehicle can be repudiated on the ground that the complainant gave wrong information to the Insurance Company in the proposal form about the previous claim taken by him from the previous insurer. The factum of theft of vehicle as stated by the complainant has not been denied by the Insurance Company. Similarly the factum of earlier claim taken by the complainant from the previous insurer has also not been denied by the complainant. The State Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Munimahesh Patel (Supra) and a few judgments of this Commission, saying that complicated and disputed facts were involved in this case, which required adjudication by a Civil Court. The disputed fact involved in the case is whether the complainant put his signatures on the proposal form or his signatures on the said form were forged by the sales officer of the Insurance Company. On the other hand, the plea taken by the complainant is that the factum of theft had no nexus with the declaration of wrong information, even if made by the complainant himself. The claim should be allowed on a non-standard basis if it is felt that there was a wrong declaration on the part of the complainant.

In the present case, as indicated earlier, the factum of theft of vehicle has not been denied by the opposite party. A report was lodged with the police about the said theft. The plea taken by the complainant that there is no nexus between the theft and giving wrong declaration seems to have considerable weight. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, 56 IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane.

Even if it is believed that the complainant concealed information about taking previous claim amounting to Rs. 14,500/- only from the previous insurer, it is not such a big lapse, which may lead to the conclusion that there has been a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. The conclusion of the District Forum, therefore, to allow claim on non-standard basis seems to be based on reasonable footing and in accordance with the law laid down on the subject. It is, therefore, held that the claim has been rightly allowed by the District Forum on a non-standard basis and the said order needs to be confirmed. This revision petition is, therefore, accepted. The impugned order of the State Commission is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum upheld, with no order as to costs.