Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/71/2016

Akshay - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Paramjeet Singh Adv., Aditya Singh Yadav Adv., & Ajay Singh Mann Adv.

06 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	71/2016
Date of Institution	:	29.01.2016
Date of Decision	:	06/06/2017

 

                                       

                                               

Akshay s/o Sh.Babu Lal r/o Shastri Nagar, Near Oil Mill, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO no.2463-2464, 1st Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Aditaya Singh Yadav, Adv. for the complainant

                    Sh.Punit Jain, Adv. for the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the complainant, who is a registered owner of Skoda car bearing registration No.HP-12-B-0069, got the same insured with the OP for a sum assured of Rs.5 lacs vide Insurance Policy (Annexure C-2) for the period from 06.02.2015 to 05.02.2016.  On 20.03.2015, the car of the complainant got fire suddenly near Rohtak Byepass.  He and his friend hurriedly got out of the vehicle and tried to extinguish the fire by using the sand but they could not succeed.  Finally, he informed the police on telephone for seeking help who further informed the fire brigade about the fire incident. The fire brigade immediately reached the spot and extinguished the fire but by that time, the car had completely burnt. He lodged a DDR No.19 dated 21.03.2015 with the Police Station Rohtak Sadar. He also informed the OP regarding the incident who appointed the surveyor and inspected the burnt vehicle.  He filed the claim alongwith the requisite documents with the OP. Subsequently, he demanded the surveyor report from the OP but the same was not supplied despite his repeated requests.  It has further been averred that the OP has repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds vide its letter dated 20.05.2015 (Annexure C-6) that the vehicle was set ablaze intentionally using inflammable material i.e. diesel etc.   Subsequently, he got served a legal notice dated 12.06.2015 upon the OP, which was replied vide its reply dated 16.07.2015. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, the OP did not deny the factum of the insurance of the vehicle vide Insurance Policy (Annexure C-2) for the IDV of Rs.5 lacs.  However, it has further been pleaded that the cause of insured vehicle getting fire due to short circuit as represented was doubtful and as such the OP initiated the forensic study through an independent expert to find out the true. It has further been pleaded that there had been deliberate and willful misrepresentation on the part of the complainant regarding the loss as the vehicle was set ablaze intentionally using inflammable material and the fire did not break out due to short circuit as alleged. It has further been pleaded that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 20.05.2015. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OP controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         The only question to be determined in this case is as to whether the claim was rightly repudiated by the OP vide its repudiation letter dated 20.05.2015 (Annexure C-6).  The stand of the OP is that as per the expert dated 16.04.2015, the  fire to the vehicle in question is intentional and, therefore, the claim was  not payable as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the same was rightly repudiated vide letter 20.05.2015.
6.         On the other hand, the stand of the Counsel for the complainant is that the vehicle in question caught fire due to short circuit in the vehicle and as such the claim was illegally and arbitrarily rejected by the OP.
7.         In order to justify its stand that the vehicle in question was set ablaze      by the complainant intentionally by using inflammable material i.e. diesel and not arising out due to short circuit, the OP has placed reliance upon the surveyor report of M/s Innovative Values & Engineer Consultant Pvt. Ltd. dated 16.04.2015, the concluding para of the said report reads as under:-

“Conclusion and Opinion

        All the above mentioned possibility and observations in the examinations of the exhibits marked as 1-5 are significant and sufficient to come to definite conclusion. Cumulative consideration of all the above mentioned detections of the diesel residues in the exhibits marked as 1-5 leads to a conclusion that the diesel residues are present in the exhibits marked as 1-5.

                On the cumulative effect of all the above reasons and observations taken together, we are in the opinion that the diesel residues are detected in the provided exhibits marked as 1-5 and presence of a number of spots or traces on the surfaces of the burnt vehicle indicates that this fire was intentionally set using a fuel or inflammable material and this fire originated due to presence of an external fuel on the surfaces of the burnt vehicle. It is our opinion that the fire is intentional in nature.

8.         However, we are not inclined to accept the said report of the surveyor/investigator because the same is not supported by the affidavit of the author of the said report.   Moreover, the surveyor/investigator in his report has not mentioned as to when the samples of the burnt vehicle were collected; from whom the said samples were collected; as to whether the samples were collected in the presence of the complainant and as to why the investigator has placed only inferences in a report and no results.  Moreover, the OP has not placed on record any evidence apart from the lone report of the investigator to establish beyond any doubt that the complainant has himself set ablaze his vehicle.  It is not understood that as to why the complainant himself set ablaze his vehicle and thereafter he made a request to the police station for seeking help.   It is also very surprising to note that the Investigator by his own observations, concluded that the fire is intentional in nature without getting the said fact established by getting the samples tested from any Forensic Science Laboratory which alone can establish the said fact in authentic and reliable manner.  
9.         Besides this, it is not understood that as to why the OP has not placed on record earlier investigation report dated 31.03.2015 conducted by M/s Real Claim Investigators, a copy of which has been placed on record by the complainant alongwith his  rejoinder.   At page 15 of the said investigation report, it has been specifically mentioned that the Investigating Officer of the Police namely Sh.Baljeet Singh vide its investigation report dated 31.03.2015 mentioned in GD No.019 at P.S.Sadar Rohtak that the incident occurred by chance.   The final conclusion of the said report is that the car belongs to the complainant and the acceptance of the liability remains with the insurer and final decision to pay the claim is left to the discretion of the OP. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the OP has illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on its part.
10.                 In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed as under ;-

1. to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.5 lacs to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its repudiation i.e. 20.05.2015 till its realization.
2. to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and physical harassment as well as deficiency in service.
3. to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by the OP, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides compliance of the directions as mentioned at Sr.No.(i) and (iii).

11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                                                     Sd/-

06/06/2017                                                      (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER