IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 23.05.2017 Date of hearing: 11.02.2026 Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO.161/2017 IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THROUGH ITS MANAGER

2E/25, JHANDEWALAN EXTENTION ABOVE HDFC BANK NEW DELHI-110055 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THROUGH ITS MANAGER BRANCH OFICE-17-18 INDRAPRASTHA BHAWAN

2ND FLOOR, NEW SABZI MANDI AZADPUR, NEW DELHI-110033 …APPELLANT (Through Mr. S.K. Tyagi, Advocate)

VERSUS MR. DEEPAK KAPOOR PROP. OF M/S D.K. JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.

2115-16, BANK STREET, KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI-110005 …RESPONDENT (Through Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: None for the appellant.

Mr. Atul Kumar, counsel for the respondent through VC.

PER : HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant on 23.05.2017 against the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VIII (Central District), Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 in Consumer Complaint bearing no. 380/2014.

2. Briefs facts of the case as per the complaint are that the complainant was the owner of vehicle bearing no. DL- 8CW-1746 which was insured with OP2 vide policy bearing no. 36080131116100005367 valid w.e.f. 26.03.2012 to 25.03.2013 for an IDV of Rs.5,36,640/-. The said vehicle was stolen on 15.03.2013 between 12.00–12.15 A.M. from his residence and an FIR bearing no. 76/2013 was lodged at P.S. Ashok Vihar. The complainant submitted a theft claim with OPs but OP1 repudiated the same vide letter dated 12.08.2013 alleging misrepresentation regarding “No Claim Bonus”. Despite subsequent representations, including a letter dated 01.03.2014 and a legal notice dated 25.06.2014, the claim was not settled which amounts to deficiency in service.

3. The Complainant filed the complaint case before the District Forum and prayed for directions to the Opposite Party to settle the claim of Rs.5,36,640/- along with compensation and costs.

4. The Opposite Parties filed the written statement, wherein it was admitted that the complainant’s vehicle was insured with them. The OP also did not dispute the factum of theft of the vehicle in question on 15.03.2013. However, it was alleged that the complainant fraudulently concealed settlement of a prior claim and wrongly availed “No Claim Bonus” and thus obtained a 20% premium discount by suppression of facts, rendering the policy void ab-initio and justifying repudiation.

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement and denied the allegations of OPs and reiterated the facts contained in the complaint.

6. The Complainant as well as Opposite Party filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit and the written arguments before the District Forum.

7. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 27.1.2017, whereby it held as under:

“We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments. In this case points to be considered are as under:-

(a)Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP? (c) Relief?

OP in reply admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with OP therefore, complainant is a consumer.

In evidence of the OP submitted proposal form of the complainant (Ex. R-1). It clarify that 20% discount on the premium (no claim bonus) was claimed by the complainant but it was the duty of the OPs to confirm the facts alleged in the proposal form within the reasonable time thereafter to issue policy to the complainant. It is also necessary to mention herein that the amount of 20 % of the premium (No Claim Bonus) as well as the information of proposal form is written in different handwriting in comparison to the complainant’s signature. So there is a possibility that 20 % discount on