Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President — The short question involved in this appeal is as to whether the Insurance Company could deduct amount of insurance premium due from the insured payable to other Insurance Companies in respect of previous insurance policies relating to a truck and hence on that account, repudiate the claim.

2. Brief facts:

Vinod Kumar Sharma, owner of Truck No. HIU 4557 got it insured with Oriental Insurance Company. The period of insurance policy commenced from August 27,1991 to August 26,1992. The aforesaid truck was involved in an accident on 29th June, 1992. Hence the owner made a claim for the insured amount of Rs. 94,890/-. It was on spending that much amount mat the truck was got repaired. Inspite of several re- minders to the Insurance Company, the claim was not settled. On notice of the complaint, the Insurance Company took up several pleas, inter- alia jurisdiction of the District Forum, Ropar to entertain the complaint for want of valid insurance cover. Both the parties produced their evidence and documents. The District Forum, vide order dated March 29,1996 held that the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 45,694/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident i.e., 29.6.92 till actual payment. A sum of Rs. 2,000/-ascostsof the proceedings was also allowed. 30 days' time was allowed to the Insurance Company to com- ply with the directions. Hence the Insurance Company is in appeal.

3. Mr. Pardeep Bedi, learned Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company, after refer- ring to letters R-2/A and R-2/B argued that in the previous two years, a sum of Rs. 2,082/- was due to other Insurance Companies from Vinod Kumar Sharma in respect of insurance of this very truck. Those Companies being — United India Insurance Company and New India Assurance Company. The amount related to the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 respectively. That being the position, the complainant was not entitled to 40% of the rebate, in respect of the insurance policy cover which is for the relevant year. This contention is devoid of merit. One week's time, at the time of arguments, was orally allowed to the learned Counsel to produce Statute or Rules or Instructions on the basis of which such a grant of No Claim Bonus could be denied. Arguments in this case were heard on Sept. 12,1996. No such instructions having been produced, we have to give the ordinary meaning of 'No Claim Bonus' allowed by the appellant while insuring the Truck in dispute. If the truck in dispute was not involved in any accident in the previous years, and no claim against the Insurance Company, with whom the same was insured, was made, the complainant could legitimately claim bonus in me premium for the relevant year. Thus no ground is made for a direction to the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,082/- towards premium. The fact cannot be lost sight off that the insurance policy is a contract and if on such contract some amount is due to any of the par- ties, they can get it recovered as a right in ordinary Court. Any breach of contract with third parties will not have effect on the contract in dispute with the appellant.

4. The denial of the claim on the aforesaid ground by the Insurance Company amounted to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant who was entitled to the amount spent on repair of truck.

5. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. The appellant is directed to make the payment, if not already made, or the remaining amount as the stay order granted on May 8,1996 by this Commission was only to the extent of Rs. 2,082/- which not stands vacated, be paid within the time specified above.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

––