It is urged that the Apex Court in National Insurance Company ltd v. Nitin Khandelwal

1. Heard Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhanu Prakash Dubey and Sri Kartikey Dubey learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.1.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a revision preferred by the present petitioner bearing Revision no.3154 of 2024 whereby it was dismissed and the order passed in an appeal by the State Consumer Commission at Lucknow dated 02.07.2024 in Appeal no.2397 of 2011 has been affirmed as well as the order passed by the District Consumer Forum in Complaint Case no.203 of 2010 dated 21.10.2011 has been upheld.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had obtained a comprehensive insurance policy from the respondent no.1, Insurance Company. Since the vehicle in question was stolen, he had put his claim which was repudiate by the Insurance Company.

4. The petitioner had taken the matter of repudiation of the claim before the District Consumer Forum wherein his complaint was dismissed on the ground that since the Insurance policy taken by the petitioner was based on non disclosure of essential facts, hence, the Insurance Company was well within its right to repudiate the claim. The same view has been 2 A227 No. 5190 of 2025 affirmed by the State Consumer Commission and the Revision has also been dismissed by the National Consumer Redressal Commission at New Delhi.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no concealment or non disclosure of fact by the petitioner in as much as while purchasing the insurance from the respondent no.1, the petitioner had annexed a copy of a cover note issued by the different insurer company relating to a period prior to which the petitioner had sought insurance with the respondent no.1.

6. It is urged that the Apex Court in National Insurance Company ltd v. Nitin Khandelwal; (2008) 11 SCC 259 has held that in case of theft any violation on the policy condition is not germane rather the insurance company ought to make the payment on a non standardize basis. It is urged that this proposition has not been taken note by the three forums under the Consumer Protection Act which has prompted the petitioner to assail the said orders before this Court in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Sri Kartikey Dubey learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 has urged that the petitioner while taking the policy from the respondent no.1 had annexed a copy of the cover note said to have been issued by ICICI Lombard for the period 22.08.2007 till 21.08.2008.

8. It is urged that on the basis of the said cover note, the respondent had issued insurance policy to the present petitioner. At the time when the petitioner had filed his papers seeking claim on account of loss of the vehicle on account of theft, the respondent no.1 examined the papers and it revealed that the cover note which was furnished by the petitioner was not appropriate for the reason that the vehicle in question was never insured by the ICICI Lombard for the period from 22.08.2007 till

28.08.2008. Since the vehicle itself was not insured and on the said basis, the present insurance was sold, hence, there was a complete non disclosure of the essential facts by the petitioner and this was sufficient enough to repudiate the claim.

9. It is further urged that this aspect of the matter has been considered by 3 A227 No. 5190 of 2025 the three courts under the Consumer Protection Act and as such findings of fact have been returned which is not amenable for correction in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

11. Certain undisputed facts that emerge from the record are:- (i) The petitioner admittedly purchased insurance of the vehicle in question from the respondent no.1 annexing a copy of a cover note said to have been issued by ICICI Lombard for the period from 22.08.2007 till

28.08.2008. (ii) It is also an admitted fact that in so far as the cover note is concerned, no premium was paid by the petitioner to ICICI Lombard nor any insurance policy was issued in furtherance of the alleged cover note. At this stage, submission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the payment of the premium was made by cheque, however, the said cheque was never encashed by the ICICI Lombard nor they intimated this fact regarding non encashment or cancellation of the policy to the petitioner. (iii) Nevertheless, the fact remains that no premium had been paid and in furtherance thereof, the ICICI Lombard had also not issued any policy to the present petitioner.

12. A specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner as to once the period of the cover note expired and it was not followed by issuance of policy apart from the fact that the cheque which was issued by the petitioner had not been encashed whether any inquiries were made by the petitioner regarding the same from ICICI Lombard to which it has been submitted that no such effort was made.

13. In the aforesaid backdrop of undisputed facts if the submission are tested it would reveal that the contract of insurance is based on ubber fides also known as the principle of utmost good faith. It is clear that the petitioner had not candidly disclosed the fact that his vehicle was never 4 A227 No. 5190 of 2025 insured nor it was followed by issuance of any policy by the ICICI Lombard and for the entire period from 22.08.2007 till

21.08.2008, no premium had been paid. This being the situation and an undisputed fact, the grounds for repudiation which has been tested by the three courts do not suffer from any palpable error for this Court to intervene in exercise of proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. September 2, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhanu Prakash Dubey and Sri Kartikey Dubey learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.1.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a revision preferred by the present petitioner bearing Revision no.3154 of 2024 whereby it was dismissed and the order passed in an appeal by the State Consumer Commission at Lucknow dated 02.07.2024 in Appeal no.2397 of 2011 has been affirmed as well as the order passed by the District Consumer Forum in Complaint Case no.203 of 2010 dated 21.10.2011 has been upheld.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had obtained a comprehensive insurance policy from the respondent no.1, Insurance Company. Since the vehicle in question was stolen, he had put his claim which was repudiate by the Insurance Company.

4. The petitioner had taken the matter of repudiation of the claim before the District Consumer Forum wherein his complaint was dismissed on the ground that since the Insurance policy taken by the petitioner was based on non disclosure of essential facts, hence, the Insurance Company was well within its right to repudiate the claim. The same view has been 2 A227 No. 5190 of 2025 affirmed by the State Consumer Commission and the Revision has also been dismissed by the National Consumer Redressal Commission at New Delhi.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no concealment or non disclosure of fact by the petitioner in as much as while purchasing the insurance from the respondent no.1, the petitioner had annexed a copy of a cover note issued by the different insurer company relating to a period prior to which the petitioner had sought insurance with the respondent no.1.

6. It is urged that the Apex Court in National Insurance Company ltd v. Nitin Khandelwal; (2008) 11 SCC 259 has held that in case of theft any violation on the policy condition is not germane rather the insurance company ought to make the payment on a non standardize basis. It is urged that this proposition has not been taken note by the three forums under the Consumer Protection Act which has prompted the petitioner to assail the said orders before this Court in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Sri Kartikey Dubey learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 has urged that the petitioner while taking the policy from the respondent no.1 had annexed a copy of the cover note said to have been issued by ICICI Lombard for the period 22.08.2007 till 21.08.2008.

8. It is urged that on the basis of the said cover note, the respondent had issued insurance policy to the present petitioner. At the time when the petitioner had filed his papers seeking claim on account of loss of the vehicle on account of theft, the respondent no.1 examined the papers and it revealed that the cover note which was furnished by the petitioner was not appropriate for the reason that the vehicle in question was never insured by the ICICI Lombard for the period from 22.08.2007 till

28.08.2008. Since the vehicle itself was not insured and on the said basis, the present insurance was sold, hence, there was a complete non disclosure of the essential facts by the petitioner and this was sufficient enough to repudiate the claim.

9. It is further urged that this aspect of the matter has been considered by 3 A227 No. 5190 of 2025 the three courts under the Consumer Protection Act and as such findings of fact have been returned which is not amenable for correction in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

11. Certain undisputed facts that emerge from the record are:- (i) The petitioner admittedly purchased insurance of the vehicle in question from the respondent no.1 annexing a copy of a cover note said to have been issued by ICICI Lombard for the period from 22.08.2007 till

28.08.2008. (ii) It is also an admitted fact that in so far as the cover note is concerned, no premium was paid by the petitioner to ICICI Lombard nor any insurance policy was issued in furtherance of the alleged cover note. At this stage, submission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the payment of the premium was made by cheque, however, the said cheque was never encashed by the ICICI Lombard nor they intimated this fact regarding non encashment or cancellation of the policy to the petitioner. (iii) Nevertheless, the fact remains that no premium had been paid and in furtherance thereof, the ICICI Lombard had also not issued any policy to the present petitioner.

12. A specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner as to once the period of the cover note expired and it was not followed by issuance of policy apart from the fact that the cheque which was issued by the petitioner had not been encashed whether any inquiries were made by the petitioner regarding the same from ICICI Lombard to which it has been submitted that no such effort was made.

13. In the aforesaid backdrop of undisputed facts if the submission are tested it would reveal that the contract of insurance is based on ubber fides also known as the principle of utmost good faith. It is clear that the petitioner had not candidly disclosed the fact that his vehicle was never 4 A227 No. 5190 of 2025 insured nor it was followed by issuance of any policy by the ICICI Lombard and for the entire period from 22.08.2007 till

21.08.2008, no premium had been paid. This being the situation and an undisputed fact, the grounds for repudiation which has been tested by the three courts do not suffer from any palpable error for this Court to intervene in exercise of proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. September 2, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench