Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Suresh Chandra, Member
Mohan Singh —Petitioner
versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2003 of 2012
(From the order dated 30.08.2011 in F.A. No.320/2006 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)
Decided on 17.05.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Obtaining Double Insurance on same vehicle would not disentitle insured to get claim under the policy.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Indian Motor Tariff GR 22—Insurance—Damage to car in accident—Insurance company repudiated claim on ground that petitioner had obtained comprehensive policy by concealing fact that vehicle was already insured for third party claim—Complaint dismissed by Fora below—Rule 22 nowhere provides that obtaining of Double Insurance would deprive insured of benefit of insurance cover—Rule only states that if two policies are in existence on same vehicle with identical cover, one of policy may be cancelled—Insurance cover obtained by petitioner from opposite party is not fully identical cover in respect of vehicle because earlier insurance policy did not provide cover against theft or own damage—Subsequent insurance policy cannot be cancelled and earlier policy has to be cancelled to ensure that petitioner may not claim third party relief twice—Obtaining Double Insurance on same vehicle would not disentitle insured to get claim under the policy—Impugned order of State Commission dismissing complaint suffers from grave factual infirmity—Impugned order set aside and complaint allowed. (Paras 9 to 12)
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the concurrent finding of the State Commission Haryana resulting in dismissal of consumer complaint filed by the petitioner – complainant.
2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that complainant insured his Fiat UNO car with OP No.1 vide insurance policy no. 2688891 for the period w.e.f. 02.04.2002 to 01.04.2003. The car met with an accident on 09.04.2002. The accident was immediately intimated to the opposite parties. The opposite party appointed a Surveyor who after conducting survey of the damaged car assessed the loss caused as Rs.35,807/-. The surveyor assessed the value of the salvage as Rs.1000/-. The insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that petitioner had obtained the comprehensive policy by concealing the fact that the vehicle in question was already insured with New India Insurance Company Ambala City for third party claim. The complainant claiming the repudiation to be deficiency in service, filed consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation of Rs.80000/- against bills of repair besides compensation of Rs.50000/- on account of mental torture and harassment as also Rs.5000/- against the cost of litigation.
3. The opposite parties in their written statement admitted the factum of insurance as also the damage caused to the car in accident. The opposite party justified the repudiation of claim on the plea that the petitioner obtained Double Insurance concealing the fact of earlier third party insurance with New India Insurance Company. Thus, according to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service.
4. The District Forum on consideration of the record and evidence of the parties found merit in the reason given for repudiation of claim and dismissed the complaint.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of complaint, the petitioner / complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission with following observations dismissed the appeal:
“From the record it is seen that after expiry of the previous insurance policy on 26.01.2002, the complainant got insured his Fiat UNO car with the New India Insurance Company, Ambala City Branch, which was third party policy. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 09.04.2002. After three months the complainant obtained another comprehensive policy for the aforesaid vehicle from the National Insurance Company. Thus, the claim of the complainant seeking compensation with respect to the damage of his vehicle on 09.04.2002 was denied because at that time the vehicle was not insured comprehensively and it was a third party insurance policy.
Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we hardly find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order whereby the complaint has been dismissed. Hence, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
6. It is against the aforesaid dismissal the appellant has preferred this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the State Commission has committed a grave irregularity in ignoring the fact that the claim of the petitioner was in respect of “own damage” covered under the comprehensive insurance which damage was not covered under the earlier third party insurance obtained from New India Insurance Company. Learned counsel submitted that if at all there was Double Insurance, it was only in respect of third party claim. Therefore, the opposite party after having received the full premium for comprehensive insurance cannot get away from its responsibility by taking plea of concealment of fact of vehicle having been insured with New India Insurance Company.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has submitted that insurance contract is a matter of trust and in the instant case admittedly the petitioner ha
