Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
Reliance GIC Ltd. – Petitioner
versus
Naynaben Kiritkumar Kadiya – Respondent
Revision Petition No.301 of 2021
(Against the Order dated 22/10/2020 in Appeal No.427/2014 of the State Commission Gujarat)
Decided on 10.8.2021
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sarthak Bali and Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Due to mistake committed by authorised attorney of petitioner two policies of same no. issued to two different persons by the Petitioner.
(2) Claim of the complainant/respondent repudiated on invalid ground.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(b) (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 58(1)(b)) – Revision Petition - Against the Order dt. 22.10.2020 in Appeal of the State Commission - Respondent vehicle was insured per renewal insurance policy obtained from Petitioner Insurance Co. on 29.07.2011 from 29.07.2011 to 28.07.2012 - Vehicle met with accident on 31.07.2011, was totally crashed – Petitioner Co. repudiated claim of Respondent insurer – Distt. Forum judgment found that policy produced by Complainant/Respondent was not found to be forged - Two policies of same number were issued to two different persons – Complaint allowed – First appeal by Petitioner Insurance Co. before State Commission dismissed – Hence, the Revision Petition before this Commission – Insurance Policy produced by complainant/respondent not found to be forged - Due to mistake committed by authorised attorney of Petitioner two policies of same no. issued to two different persons by the Petitioner – Claim of the Complainant/Respondent repudiated on invalid ground. (Paras 1, 4, 7 & 8)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Sarthak Bali and Anuj Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner.
2. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, Ahmedabad dated 22.10.2020, passed in First Appeal No. 427 of 2014 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Himmatnagar dated 19.08.2013, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 61 of 2012), whereby District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
3. The office has reported that the revision has been filed with delay of 51 days. The impugned order is dated 22.10.2020, i.e. passed during pandemic period. In view of the order of Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, by orders dated 23.03.2020, 08.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, delay in filing the revision is condoned.
4. Naynaben Kiritkumar Kadiya (the respondent) filed Consumer Complaint No. 61 of 2012 claiming (a) Rs.2,00,000/- (after deducting Rs.50,000/-) i.e. coverage of insurance policy, for damage of her vehicle (b) to award litigation cost of Rs.5000/- and (c) any other or further relief as may deem just and proper be awarded. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased Wagan R Car, bearing registration No. GJ-9 AG-2632 in August 2009. The vehicle was insured by Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. and thereafter by HDFC Argo General Insurance Company, under package policy, which was valid up to 28.07.2011. Thereafter, renewal insurance policy of the vehicle was obtained from Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. on 29.07.2011 for a period of 29.07.2011 to 28.07.2012 under
package policy, being Policy No. 1621712311000756, for coverage of Rs.2,50,000/-. The vehicle met in an accident on 31.07.2011, at 10.30 pm, in which, it was totally crashed. The accident was duly reported to Modasa Rural Police Station. The complainant gave information of the accident to the Insurer on telephone at that time. Thereafter, the complainant set up her claim under the insurance policy before the Insurer. The Insurer issued a letter dated 03.09.2011, to show cause as to why the claim was not set up within 7 days of the accident. The complainant gave reply to the aforesaid letter, showing the reason for delay. The Insurer through letter dated 03.12.2011, repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of obtaining insurance policy incorrect information that the vehicle was previously insured by HDFC Argo General Insurance Company, was given and the claim was set up after 7 days. It has been stated that the reason given for repudiating the claim was incorrect.
5. The revisionist contested the case and filed its written statement, on 28.07.2012, in which, the fact of obtaining insurance policy from Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. on 29.07.2011 for a period of 29.07.2011 to 28.07.2012 under package policy, being Policy No. 1621712311000756, for coverage of Rs.2,50,000/-, has not been denied. However, it has been stated when the claim of the complainant was investigated then Policy No. 2311200069089000000, was found in the name of Durgesh Implex Pvt. Ltd. of another vehicle, which was Skoda car as such the complainant had not obtained insurance from HDFC Argo General Insurance Company, in previous year. Due to false statement supplied by the complainant, her policy was vitiated and had become void. She submitted her claim with delay of 23 days although it ought to have been submitted within 7 days of the accident as such her claim was repudiated.
6. The complainant filed policy obtained from HDFC Argo General Insurance Company i.e. Policy No. 2311200069089000000. The Insurer also filed Zerox copy of Insurance Policy issued by HDFC Argo General
Insurance Company i.e. Policy No. 2311200069089000000. In the circumstances, statement of Mr. Fenil Shah, an officer of HDFC Argo General Insurance Company was recorded; who in his statement has not stated
