Date of Filing: 01.10.2018
Date of Order:13.07.2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Tuesday the 13th day of July, 2021
C.C.No. 379 of 2018
Between
Shree Padmavathi Glass and Plywood,
Rep. by Arvind Kumar Jain S/o Kishorimal Jain,
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business,
15-1-503/C/9, 4th Floor,
Ashok Nagar, Feelkhana,
Hyderabad - 500012
….Complainant
And
- Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
7-1-12 A, APDL Estate, 1st Floor,
Opp. Country Club, Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500016.
- Kapil Motors Pvt Ltd,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
2-4-135, Snehapuri Colony,
Hyderabad - 500035
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Mr. Ravi Shinde
Counsel for the Opposite party No.1 : Suri Sravan Kumar
Counsel for the Opposite party No.2 : Indus Law Firm
O R D E R
(By Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)on behalf of the Bench)
1. The present complaint is filed under Section 3 (e) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service U/s 2(g) to direct to settle the claim of Rs. 73,516/- along with 18% interest p.a together with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs.
2. The case of the complainant in brief :
The complainant has insured his Motor Car bearing No. TS09E5303 Honda Maze with the Respondent vide compressive policy No : 2017-V5265561-PV by paying premium of a sum of Rs. 2,421/- and the policy coverage period is from 03.10.2017 to 02.10.2018. The said insured car suddenly caught fire under its bonnet while the car was running and the complainant incurred a sum for Rs. 73,516/- towards its repairs and when the complainant submitted his claim to the opposite party No.1, it rejected his claim on the ground that according to root cause analysis by Honda Car Ltd, there was an extra fitment (High Ampere Bulb) fitted in the head lamp which is not covered under the terms and conditions of the manufacturer. Complainant also submitted that the report obtained by the opposite party No.1 from Honda Cars Ltd was without permission from him. The report cannot be correct since the Honda Cars Ltd i.e, the manufacturer is the interested party and there is collusion between the opposite party No.1 and the Honda Cars Ltd in getting the report, as such he was not accepting the said report. Complainant issued Legal notice to the opposite parties for settlement of claim but there was no response from the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
3. Version of opposite party No.1 in brief:-
Opposite party No.1 filed written version submitting various grounds for dismissal of complaint. It submitted that the person who signed the complaint did not verify the contents of the complaint as true, as such the complaint was not maintainable. Secondly, it stated that it cannot admit Mr. Arivind Kumar Jain to be the competent person to sign or present the complaint on behalf of the complainant. It also submitted that the complainant did not file the complaint under relevant section of Law therefore the complaint was not maintainable. The opposite party No.1 further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are very vague and no proper facts or pleadings are made as such it prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The opposite party No.1 further also submitted that though it was true that the complainant insured his vehicle with their Bangalore Office vide Policy No. 2017-V5265561-FPV for the period 03.10.2017 to 02.10.2018 and the policy issued was Motor Secure Private Care Insurance – Comprehensive Policy, it submitted that the complainant failed to state the date of accident as well as the reasons for the cause of fire of the car under its bonnet and proof of the expenditure of Rs. 73,516/- incurred towards repairs. The complainant did not mention the cause of fire to the call centre and even in the claim form but simply stated that “While running all of a sudden Fire errupted in the bonnet of the vehicle”. The opposite party No.1 also submitted that they referred the damaged vehicle of the complainant to the manufacturer/Honda Cars India Ltd to ascertain the root cause analysis. The manufacturer examined the vehicle and submitted the report stating that the loss was due to extra fitment (usage of high ampere bulb in head lamp). The opposite party No.1 after perusal of the photos of the damaged car, the surveyor’s observation as well as the root cause analysis and observed that the extra fitment (high ampere bulb) in head lamp was not recommended by the manufacturer due to which, the vehicle caught sudden fire under its bonnets, which amounts to violation of condition No.4 of the policy.
The opposite party No.1 also submitted that the complainant even violated the manufactures warranty condition by fitting extra fitment to the car. The warranty condition of the Honda Cars clearly states that the warrantee shall not apply to Damage or Failure resulting from Modifications , Alterations, Tampering or in proper repair and the complainant also violated the M.V Rules by fitting extra fitments. The opposite party No.1 addressed letter dt. 19.04.2018 to the complainant about the above violations as well as the conditions of the policy and asked the complainant to respond with valid reasons but the complainant instead of sending a reply, he surprisingly sent a legal notice dt. 20.06.2018 demanding the settlement of claim. The complainant did not allege in the complaint that the complainant has not made any extra fitment to the Car and not violated the specifications of the manufacturer. In the absence of such plea by the complainant it clearly shows to prove that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands as such it prayed that there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Version of opposite party No.2 in brief:-
The Opposite party No.2 submitted that the complaint filed against them was neither maintainable in fact nor in law and even as per the recitals in the complaint, it shows that only for the purpose of gathering additional evidence against opposite party No.1, it was unnecessarily dragged into this litigation and it is a clear case of misjoinder of parties as such it prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.
5. In the course of enquiry, the complainant has filed evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and got marked exhibits Ex.A1 to A4. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 also filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 on their behalf. Written arguments are filed by both parties complainant and opposite party No.1. Heard both parties.
6. On a consideration of the material brought on record, the following points have emerged for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed for?
- If so, to what relief.?
Point No.1 & 2:-
It is an admitted fact that the complainant has insured his Motor Car bearing No. TS09E5303 Honda Maze with the opposite party vide comprehensive policy bearing No. 2017-V5265561-PV covering the period from 03.10.2017 to 02.10.2018 and on 07.02.2018, while the car was running, suddenly fire erupted from the bonnet of the Car and the damage was caused.
It is contended by the complainant that he incurred an expenditure of a sum of Rs. 73,516/- towards the repairs of his damaged car and claimed the said amount from opposite party No.1/ Insurance Company but the opposite party No.1 has repudiated his genuine claim.
Whereas the contention of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant has made an extra fitment by changing the head lights of the car due to which, the fire has erupted and further stated that immediately after the receipt of intimation of accident from the complainant, they appointed a surveyor to know the exact cause of the accident and the surveyor after examining the car submitted his Analysis report. According to the said report, the fire erupted and the damage is caused due to the extra fitment i.e, the usage of high ampere bulb in the head lamp which is not recommended by the manufacturer, as such the act of the complainant amounts to violation of condition no.4 which is extracted herein below:
“The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all-time free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured”.
On careful perusal of complaint, Written version and the documents marked by both parties, it is observed that the complainant has not denied the allegations of the opposite party either in his complaint or in his evidence affidavit that he never made any extra fittings or alterations/modifications by fixing high ampere power blub in the Car. Besides this, the opposite party No.1 also in order to substantiate its contention filed Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. Ex.B3 is the letter issued by Mr.B. Dhanasekaran, the service manager of Green Honda categorically mentioning as follows “we checked and found RH side headlight bulb was Bosch and capacity 100/90W which is not Honda recommended bulbs and it is high amperage and heated up and finally it fired.”
Based on the discussion held above, we strongly feel that the complainant has failed to establish that he has not violated the policy condition No.4 i.e, the fixation of the high voltage headlamp bulb which is the root cause for the eruption of fire. The report of the service manager of Green Honda under Ex.B3 has not been disproved by the complainant. Hence, we are of the opinion that opposite party is justified in repudiating
the claim and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As such we are of the considered opinion to dismiss the complaint, point No.1 & 2 are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against complainant.
Point No.3
In the result, this complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this 13th the day of July, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1– Copy of Future Generali Total Insurance Solutions dt.
19.04.2018.
Ex.A2 – Copy of Legal notice dt. 20.06.2018.
Ex.A3 – Copy of comprehensive policy No. 2017-V5265561-FPV
Ex.A4 – Copy of Tax invoice dt. 06.03.2018.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1– Copy of Motor secure Pvt Car Insurance compressive policy
Ex.B2– Copy of Claim Form
Ex.B3– Copy of Report from Honda Dealer dt. 22.02.2018
Ex.B4– Copy of complaint dt 19.04.2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
