By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint in short is as follows:-
1. The first complainant is the registered owner of vehicle no. KL 54 H 7400 Maruti Swift VDI BSIV Model Pearl Acritic White. On 04/11/2022 at about 7.15 PM while the second complainant was driving the vehicle, the vehicle got fire and damaged. Then the complainant approached the first opposite party for the insurance claim on 05/11/2022 itself. Thereafter Police enquiry the technician of the first opposite party inspected the vehicle and the vehicle was shifted from the accident spot to the first opposite party using the crane. The first opposite party issued a job card to repair the vehicle. Thereafter the service advisor of first opposite party contacted the second complainant over telephone and informed that they are prepared to treat the vehicle as total loss and they are willing to accept the vehicle for Rs. 2,80,000/-. But the reply of second complainant was that they are only prepared to get the vehicle repaired. But the service advisor repeatedly called the second complainant and the answer was that they are not prepared to sell the vehicle to the first opposite party treating the same as total loss for the sum assured Rs.2,80,000/-. Then the service advisor called the second complainant and informed that they are prepared to accept the vehicle for Rs.3,00,000/- and further informed that the said amount is maximum value of the vehicle which can be availed treating the total loss and if the complainant is not prepared to accept the offer it was informed that the complainant will not get the insurance benefit. It was further informed that the first opposite party has got close relationship with the second opposite party and the second opposite party will not super seed the suggestion of the first opposite party. Thereafter the vehicle was not repaired by the first opposite party and the complainant was constrained to issue noticed to the opposite party. Thereafter caused lawyer notice also on 10/01/2023. The first opposite party sent a reply without mentioning the authority and treating the notice as lightly. Thereafter on 11/01/2023 the second opposite party issued a notice to the first complainant alleging that the vehicle involved in the accident was carrying unauthorised parking lamp bulb and which resulted firing and so the complainant is not entitled for the insurance benefit. The complainant submitted that there was no parking lamp bulb as alleged by the opposite parties. Only the parking lamp available was actually therein at the time of purchase of the vehicle itself.
2. The complainant submitted that the allegation of the presence of parking lamb bulb is manipulated by the first opposite party on account of denial of offer made by the service advisor to hand over the vehicle for Rs. 3,00,000/- considering the total loss of vehicle. The complainant submitted that the vehicle is with the first opposite party and expressed anguish that the opposite party will make extra fittings over the vehicle to deny the insurance benefit to the complainant.
3. Hence the complainant alleged there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for the compensation altogether Rs. 5,00,000/- and also the opposite parties are liable to repair the vehicle as per the insurance coverage.
4. On admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The opposite parties denied the entire averments and allegations in the compliant.
5. The first opposite party submitted that the vehicle involved in this complaint is purchased from RBD of Thrissur and the vehicle was brought to the first opposite party the first time. The vehicle was got fired while the second complainant was driving the vehicle and thereafter the complainant approached the first opposite party for the insurance claim.
6. The opposite party denied the allegation that the service advisor informed the second complainant and stated that they are prepared to accept the vehicle for Rs. 2,80,000/- treating the vehicle as total loss. Actually on information from the second complainant, the staff of the first opposite party brought the vehicle from the spot of incident to the first opposite party using the crane. The vehicle brought to the first opposite party for doing repair work on availing the insurance benefit. But the insurance policy was not related to the Maruti and so as usual an estimate for Rs.2,79,806/- was prepared and given to the second complainant and the second complainant has produced the same before the insurance company. The insurance company is liable to consider the insurance claim.
7. On receipt of estimate and intimation the insurance surveyor of the second opposite party came to the first opposite party and informed there is chance to treat total loss of the vehicle. But never stated that the vehicle is entitled to treat as total loss and they are prepared to accept the vehicle for the sum Rs. 2,80,000/- as stated in the complaint. The opposite party further denied the allegation the service advisor contacted the complainant and thereby offered to accept the vehicle for Rs 3,00,000/- which is the maximum price can be availed for the vehicle that in case the complainant is not repaired to hand over the vehicle to the first opposite party, the complainant will not get the insurance that the first opposite party and second opposite party are in good terms and the second opposite party will not go beyond the suggestion of the first opposite party .
8. The opposite party submitted that in case the estimate value is exceeding the 70% of IDV of the vehicle will be treated as total loss and also submitted that once the vehicle met with an accident like this in future also the vehicle will get damaged quickly.
9. The opposite party submitted that they came to know from the side of insurance company that the accident was caused due to fitting of additional accessories. The insurance had detected extra fitting of park light, Fog Lamp 100 W, stereo, reverse sensor etc. As per the law the vehicle is forfeited to use fog lamp bulb of 35W, but the complainant’s vehicle was holding 100W Fog lamp bulb. Accordingly, the Insurance Company informed that they are not prepared to allow the insurance claim. The opposite party was informed that they can repair the vehicle only if the insurance company allow the claim and it is submitted that the first opposite party have no power to allow the insurance claim. All these facts were duly communicated to the complainant, but the complaint wilfully suppressing all these facts.
10. The opposite party submitted that the incident took place due to the illegal extra fittings and for that the complainant alone is responsible. Hence the complaint is baseless and to be dismissed. The complainant can approach the first opposite party and the first opposite party is ready and willing to repair the vehicle on payment of the repair cost. Otherwise, the complainant can take away the vehicle from the first opposite party. The first opposite party is keeping the vehicle without recovering any amount from the complainant. The opposite party is suffering huge loss due to the act of the complainant. The opposite party submitted the vehicle of the complainant was running with illegal extra fittings which resulted the accident. The present complaint filed suppressing all the facts and thereby meant to mislead the Commission. The complainant is not entitled for any benefit as prayed.
11. The second opposite party filed version denying the averment and allegations in the complaint. The second opposite party admitted that the vehicle KL-54H-7400 Maruti Swift car was insured vide policy No. 76190431220100007440 for the period 24/07/2022 to 23/07/2023. It is submitted that the policy is subject to conditions and exclusions attached therein.
12. The second opposite party submitted that they are now aware of the offers or conversations made between the opposite parties. It is submitted the first opposite party and their staff are not competent to make any offer in the matter of claim settlement arising out of the policy. It is submitted the allegation, the second opposite party will take decision according to the decision taken by the first opposite party is not at all correct. The second opposite party will process the claim as per policy conditions and IRDA Regulations and law applicable in this regard, based on the report of independent surveyor appointed for assessing the loss of damage and cause of accident.
13. The opposite party submitted when the claim was reported they arranged a licenced surveyor for assessing the cause, nature and loss /damage sustained to car. The surveyor Mr Noushad Babu inspected the vehicle and conducted survey as per norms and conditions applicable to the policy.
14. The surveyor filed report which revealed that the vehicle was fitted with unauthorised parking lamp, bulb in the head lamp unit and found that the origin of fire is from Head Lamp Unit. Later the surveyor collected an inspection report from manufactures, engineers, Marti Suzuki Limited, as per the Maruti Engineer’s report there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the fire was due to the un approved electrical fitment in the vehicle. The RHS parking lamb fitted in the vehicle (which is also melted) is an unapproved one and the manufacturer does not allow the use of such spurious parts since they become overheated and chance to short circuit causing fire.
15. In the light of surveyor report, the second opposite party obtained a second opinion from another licenced surveyor Mr Rajesh M and the second opinion also confirms the first surveyor’s conclusion of cause of damage. In the circumstances as per the policy condition the second opposite party cannot allow the claim and the same was informed to the insured vide letter dated 11/01/2023.
16. It is submitted that using of lambs or bulbs with higher watts will produce more heat while using the lamb and likely to cause fire and damage to the vehicle. So lambs with appropriate watt will have to be used as per manufacturers guidelines, otherwise there will be chance of causing fire. The opposite party submitted that they processed the claim as per the norms and policy conditions. It is submitted there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the second opposite party.
17. The opposite party specifically denied the contentions of the complainant that fitting of spurious sparking lamb is not caused for the fire that the vehicle was having the same parking light at the time of purchase etc. The opposite party submitted that the Maruti engineer verified the fact and informed the use of spurious lamp in the car. The opposite party denied the submission of the complainant that the complainant was not ready to sell the car to the first opposite party for Rs. 3,00,000/- which resulted denial of insurance and thereby caused mental agony to the complainant. It is also denied the allegation that the illegal fitment of an unauthorised fitment of spurious lamp by the first opposite party to make denial of the claim. The Maruti Engineer verified the spurious lamp and the same was in melted form due to fire.
18. The opposite party submitted that the complainant did not suffer any mental agony and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service since the IDV of the vehicle itself is only Rs. 3,00,000/- as per the policy . As per the repair cost of vehicle the same is more than 70% of the IDV of the vehicle.
19. The opposite party submitted that the reason of short circuit to the electric harness is the use of spurious /unauthorised lamp. Hence as per the policy condition, the second opposite party is not liable to indemnify the loss as per law. The insured is expected to take care and the use the car with utmost care and as per instructions given by the manufacturer. Hence the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint for the ends of justice.
20. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the part of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A9 and the documents of the opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B4. Ext. A1 is the copy of Certificate of Registration of vehicle No.KL-54H-7400. Ext. A2 is copy of Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance. Ext. A3 is copy of Job slips. Ext. A4 is the photocopy of GD entry from Ponnani Police station dated 24/11/2022. Ext. A5 is the copy of letter issued by complainant to the first opposite party dated 03/01/2023. Ext. A6 is the copy of reply issued by the first opposite party to Suhair V.V. dated 07/01/2023. Ext. A7 is the copy of lawyer notice with acknowledgement and postal receipt dated 07/01/2023. Ext. A8 is the copy of letter issued by the insurance company to the insured. Ext.A9 is copy of cash invoice. Ext.B1 is the copy of Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of insurance with policy No.76190431220100007440 valid from 24/07/2022 to 23/07/2023. Ext. B2 is the copy of Survey Report of insurance Surveyor Noushad Babu K.K dated 11/01/2023. Ext. B3 is copy of second opinion issued by insurance surveyor and Loss Assessor Mr. Rajesh M. dated 12/01/2023. Ext. B4 is copy of email from Maruti Engineer to the insurance surveyor.
21. Heard complainant and opposite parties. Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and cost?
22. Point No.1 and 2:-
The case of the complainant is that the vehicle got fire on 04/11/2022 at about 7.15 PM while the second complainant was driving the vehicle. The vehicle was insured with the second opposite party, but the second opposite party denied the insurance claim. The complainant submitted that immediately after the accident the vehicle was taken by the first opposite party and an estimate for repair was prepared. The complainant submitted that considering the IDV and the repair cost the service advisor called over phone to the second complainant and informed that vehicle can be treated as total loss and they are prepared to accept the vehicle for an amount of Rs. 2, 80,000/-. The complainant was not willing to accept the offer and then the service advisor enhanced the offer up to Rs. 3,00,000/- and then also the complainant refused to accept the offer. The complainant alleged then the service advisor called the second complainant and informed, if the complainant is not ready to accept the offer the complainant will not get the insurance claim. Hence filed this complaint on denial of the insurance claim by the opposite parties. The complainant submitted that there was no additional fittings of spurious parking lamp as alleged by the opposite parties. But the vehicle was having the same parking light at the time of purchase of the vehicle.
23. The complainant produced Ext. A1 to A9 to establish the case.
24. The opposite parties opposed the entire averments and allegations of the policy except the fact the vehicle insured with the second opposite party and the vehicle was taken to the first opposite party after the incident of fire. The first opposite party further admitted an estimate was given to the complainant for producing before the Insurance Company.
25. The specific allegation of the opposite party No.2 is that the insurance was denied as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The submission of the second opposite party is that immediately on receipt of information regarding the incident an approved surveyor was deputed to inspect the vehicle and to file a report. Ext. B2 is the report filed by the surveyor and as per the survey report it was reported that “the vehicle is fitted with unauthorised parking lamp bulb in the RHS Head Lamb Unit and found that the origin of fire is from that Head Lamb Unit, so I have collected the inspection report from the manufacturer’s, engineers. As per the Maruti Engineers report there is no manufacturing report in the vehicle and the fire is due to the unapproved electrical fitment in the vehicle. The RHS Parking Lamb Bulb fitted in the vehicle (which is also melted) is an unapproved one and the manufacturer does not allow the usage of such spurious parts since they were become overheated and chance to short circuited and caught fire”. The opposite party produced Ext.B3 which is an additional report amounts as second opinion. The second opinion also is that the vehicle was fitted with a non-genuine parking lamp, bulb in the RH side Head Lamb Unit and found that fire started from that head lamp unit. Ext. B4 is email communication from the AM Motors Changaramkulam that “based on the investigation of the available burnt parts no manufacturing defect was observed in the vehicle. Fire is suspected due to unapproved fitment in vehicle”.
26. The perusal of documents disclosed that the incident took place unauthorised fitment of spurious parking lamps in the vehicle. The opposite party produced Ext. B3 to B4 to establish the same. “The complainant could not establish the cause of incident was not otherwise. Hence the Commission hold that the vehicle caught fire due to extra fitment of spurious lamps in the vehicle and so there is sufficient reason to repudiate the claim of the complainant” .
27. Though the complainant submitted that there was telephonic call from the service advisor offering to receive the vehicle for Rs.2,80,000/- and thereafter Rs. 3,00,000/-but no piece of evidence is produced to establish the same. The first opposite party contended that they will be benefited only if there is repair work instead of treating the vehicle as total loss. Hence the Commission cannot accept the contention of the complainant that the first opposite party in collusion with the second opposite party defeated the interest of complainant. The perusal of affidavit and documents of the opposite party substantiate the cause for repudiation of claim. Hence the commission do not find deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties and so the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 25th day of November, 2024.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A9
Ext. A1 : Copy of Certificate of Registration vehicle No.KL-54H-7400.
Ext. A2 : Copy of policy schedule cum Certificate of insurance.
Ext. A3 : Copy of Job slips. Ext. A4 is the photocopy of GD entry from Ponnani Police
station dated 24/11/2022.
Ext. A5 :Copy of letter issued by complainant to the first opposite party dated
03/01/2023.
Ext. A6: Copy of reply issued by the first opposite party to Suhair V.V. dated
07/01/2023.
Ext. A7 : Copy of lawyer notice with acknowledgement and postal receipt dated
07/01/2023.
Ext. A8 : Copy of letter issued by the insurance company to the insured.
Ext. A9 : Copy of cash invoice.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B4
Ext. B1 : Copy of Policy schedule cum Certificate of insurance with policy No.
76190431220100007440 valid from 24/07/2022 to 23/07/2023.
Ext. B2 : Copy of Survey Report of insurance surveyor Noushad Babu K.K dated
11/01/2023.
Ext. B3 : Copy of second opinion issued by insurance surveyor and loss Assessor Mr.
Rajesh M. dated 12/01/2023.
Ext. B4 : Copy of email from Maruti Engineer to the insurance surveyor.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
