The obligation of the insured to act in good faith and the principle of equity influenced the court's decision to dismiss the revision petition.

ORDER

Vinay Kumar, Member - The revision petitioner Mr. Brij Bhushan has challenged the decision of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in First Appeal No. 1453 of 2006. The matter arose out of an insurance claim which had been repudiated by the respondent National Insurance Company Limited. The District Forum has allowed the claim as per the assessment of loss by the Surveyor appointed by respondents/OPs. However, the appeal against the order of the District Forum was allowed by the State Commission, dismissing the complaint.

2. Brief facts of the case, as seen from the record, are that a truck owned by the appellant/Complainant was insured with the respondents/OPs for Rs. 9.7 lakh. During the period of operation of the policy, the truck met with an accident on 4.1.2004. The Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company made an assessment of loss and the Complainant, allegedly with the oral consent of the Surveyor, got the vehicle repaired, spending over Rs. 5.5. lakh. The respondent/National Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 23.6.2005 giving the following reasons

"On going through the documents, including your representation dated 26.4.2005 and the circumstances, the competent authority, after due application of mind, has observed that, since you have deliberately and fraudulently misrepresented and misled the company, while getting benefit of 55% NCB, transferred on your new truck No. Pb-13-I-5375, you have breached the principle of utmost good faith, which is the foundation of the contract of insurance in question. Moreover, you have utterly failed to justify your entitlement of 55% discount on the premium as well as indemnity against the loss caused to your vehicle in an accident dated 4.1.2004. As per the Indian Motor Tariff 2002, framed by the tariff advisory committee, a statutory body under the Insurance Act, 1938, you are not entitled to any own damage claim, since in the light of general regulation No. 27, all the benefits under Section-I of the policy of insurance, stand forfeited in the given circumstances of this case. Hence your claim, with regard to the accidental damages dated 4.1.2004, caused to vehicle No. Pb-13-I-5375, is hereby repudiated and we are not liable to pay any amount as claimed by you."

3. In the consumer complaint before the District Forum Sangrur, challenging the repudiation of the claim, the case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that the vehicle was insured after paying full premium advised by the agent of the opposite parties, who had also informed him that he would be entitled to no claim bonus. The same was allowed by the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company. After repair of the vehicle all the bills and estimates were submitted to the Branch. If in the opinion of the Branch Manager, he was not entitled to no claim bonus' (NCB), the former should have sought payment of additional amount of premium within 21 days of issuing the cover note. It was alleged that the question of no claim bonus' was raised by the OP only after he had lodged the claim for damage to the vehicle in the accident of 4.1.2004 i.e. several months after issue of the cover note.

4. On the other hand, the case of the OP/Insurance Company was that its authorized agent was informed by the Complainant that his old vehicle was insured with another Insurance Company and had been sold. The insurance of the previous vehicle was claimed to have been shifted to the new vehicle. Therefore, the benefit of NCB was allowed, believing his statement. But, on verification with the previous insurer, it was discovered that the cover note 602984 of 10.3.2002, mentioned by the Complainant, was actually issued in the name of one Balwinder Singh. The Complainant also wrote to the Division Manager, National Insurance Company, Sangrur on 27.10.2004 that the vehicle mentioned earlier belonged to him and had been sold and that the insurance was shifted to his new vehicle.

5. We have carefully perused the re