First Appeal No. 414 of 2015. Case: National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. Vs Inega International and Ors.. Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 414 of 2015
Party NameNational Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. Vs Inega International and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: Nitin Gupta, Advocate
JudgesJ.S. Klar, (Presiding Member (J)) and Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12
Judgement DateApril 03, 2017
CourtChhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

J.S. Klar, (Presiding Member (J)), (Chandigarh)

  1. The appellants have directed this appeal against order dated 26.02.2015 of District Forum Ludhiana, directing the appellants to settle and pay the claim of respondents of this appeal on non-standard basis, as per the surveyor report dated 29.03.2013, besides litigation expenses of Rs. 7000/- to complainants. The appellants are the opposite parties in the original complaint before District Forum and respondents of this appeal are the complainants therein and they be referred as such, hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

  2. The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that complainant No. 2 is the proprietor of complainant No. 1 concern. The complainants are owners of vehicle Cruze-2.LTZ Model 2011 from Padam Motors Ludhiana by paying premium of Rs. 24027/- against IDV of Rs. 11 lac. The vehicle was insured with OPs for the period 08.02.2012 to 07.02.2013. The complainants lodged insurance claim with OPs about accident of the vehicle on 23.01.2013 by submitting claim form, copy of DL, copy of RC and repair bill of Rs. 1320750/-. The OPs repudiated the claim, vide letter dated 21.10.2013, instead of settlement of the claim on cashless basis. The ground on which the claim was repudiated, was claim of no claim bonus of 20% in the previous year taken wrongly by the complainant. No claim bonus, as given by the OPs in its policy dated 12.03.2012 and cover note dated 18.02.2012 was unrelated to the claim paid by TATA AIG General Insurance Ltd. for the period 02.02.2011 to 01.02.2012 to the complainants. The OPs issued policy not on the basis of the previous policy of TATA AIG, rather the same was issued on the basis of new contract entered into between the parties. The insurance policy issued by TATA AIG General Insurance Ltd. For the period 02.02.2011 to 01.02.2012 had already expired and OPs issued policy thereafter for further period of 08.02.2012 to 07.02.2013 for insurance of above said vehicle after gap of seven days from expiry of the previous policy issued by TATA AIG General Insurance Ltd. Since there was gap of seven days of this policy expiry date and the new policy commencement date, as issued by OPs, hence, repudiation of claim by OPs is unreasonable and unjustified on that basis. The IDV of the vehicle was determined as Rs. 1094079/- in the previous policy issued by TATA AIG General Insurance Ltd., by way of depreciation at least @ 15% of IDV, whereas the insurance coverage was for Rs. 11 lac. The OPs received premium and issued commencement of the risk by issuing policy dated 12.03.2012 for the period 08.02.2012 to 07.02.2013 of the vehicle. No claim bonus, as projected by OPs, cannot be made a ground of repudiation of insurance policy by OPs. The complainants prayed for direction to OPs to set...

To continue reading

Request your trial