Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice K. Sampath, President; Tmt. R. Vanaroja &
Thiru Pon. Gunasekaran, Members
V. ARAVANDI—Appellant
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.—Respondent
A.P. No. 451 of 2001—Decided on 27.3.2006
For the Appellant :Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M/s. Lakshmipriya Associates, Advocates.
Failure to disclose material information to the Insurance Company can lead to the dismissal of an insurance claim.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Misrepresentation of vehicle type - Failure to inform Insurance Company of vehicle conversion - Dismissal of claim
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased a vehicle with insurance coverage as an open body carrier. The vehicle was later converted into a tanker without informing the Insurance Company. An accident occurred, and the claim was repudiated by the opposite party.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum dismissed the complaint, stating that the appellant failed to inform the Insurance Company of the vehicle conversion and therefore, the claim was dismissed.
Issues: Misrepresentation of vehicle type, failure to inform Insurance Company of vehicle conversion, dismissal of claim
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's failure to inform the Insurance Company of the vehicle conversion and the subsequent claim based on the converted vehicle led to the dismissal of the claim.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Thiru Justice K. Sampath, President—The complainant in O.P. No. 190/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant herein. His case was as follows:
(a) He purchased a vehicle from one Rajendran. The said Rajendran had given a proposal for insurance coverage on 16.2.1996 and in that proposal he had stated that the vehicle was an open body carrier. He paid the premium only for the open body carrier. The Insurance Company also collected the premium on the basis that the vehicle was an open body carrier. After the complainant purchased the vehicle, the insurance was transferred in his favour for the period 14.6.1996 to 15.2.1997. There was an accident on 15.2.1997. The complainant made a claim. The opposite party repudiated the claim by letter dated 13.8.1997 but volunteered to settle the claim at 75% of the value of the policy of the insurance as non-standard claim without any legal basis. Hence the complaint came to be filed.
2. The opposite party resisted the claim. The conversion of the vehicle into a tanker was suppressed to the opposite party at the time of taking the policy and in such circumstances the opposite party proposed to settle the claim on non-standard basis at 75%. The original owner in his proposal form had stated that the vehicle was an open body carrier. Premium was also collected only on that basis. No additional premium was paid by the subsequent purchaser, the complainant. There was thus clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party’s liability being a contractual one and not a statutory liability and if there was any dispute with regard to quantum of compensation the matter should go before the Arbitrator. The Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction.
3. The District Forum accepted the case of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint by order dated 6.7.1998. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.
4. When the original owner had given the proposal on the basis that it was an open body carrier and the insurance was also transferred in the name of the complainant on its purchase and if the complainant wanted to have it converted into a tanker, he ought to have informed the Insurance Company and if the Insurance Company had made a demand for further premium, he should have paid that. The fact remains that he did not bring it to the notice of the Insurance Company, opposite party and after the accident he had made a claim on the basis that it was a tanker. We do not find any merit in the case of the appellant/complainant. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.
5. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No cost.
Appeal dismissed.
