Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/34/2019

Anand Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Rajesh Sheoran

25 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                              

                                       RBT CC No.34 of 02.09.2019

                                      Complaint Case No.at DC Bhiwani  78 of 2017

                                       Date of Institution  at DC Bhiwani:  25.05.2017

                                      Date of Decision:                               25.09.2024

Anand Singh son of Shri Mehtab Singh, resident of village Jewli, Tehsil Badhra now Distt. Charkhi Dadri

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limted having its Registered& Head Office “Dare House” 2^nd Floor No.234, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600001 and one of its Branch office at SCO-103, 2^nd Floor, Mugal Canal Market, Karnal through its authorized signatory.…...Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

BEFORE: -   Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                    Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member   

 

Present: -    Shri Rajesh Sheoran Advocate for complainant.

Shri Balbir Sharma, Advocate for Op.

 

ORDER: -

1.           The case of the complainant in brief, is that his Mahindra Saloon XYLO  bearing registration No. HR-55P-9592 having  engine No.B39260 was insured with the OP vide policy No.3368/00794108/000/00 from 18.03.2016 to 17.03.2017. It was averred that on 18.7.2016, when complainant was coming from Badhra to Dadri by his said vehicle and reached near village Bharvi, all of sudden the caught fire.  The complainant called the fire brigade and police. The complainant informed about the incident to the police and DDR No. 03 dated 20.07.2016 was got registered in Police Station, Sadar, Dadri. It was further averred that the complainant had lodged the claim with the OP alongwith all the required documents, but the OP failed in settling his claim despite repeated requests. The OPs deputed Shri Ravi Kumar Bhatti, Surveyor for settlement of his claim but the said surveyor delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. It was further averred that a legal notice dated 09.11.2016. The opposite party replied to the same on 10.12.2016 The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OP, he suffers mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2.           On appearance, the OPs had filed written statement stating that receipt of information regarding the damage to the vehicle and that the vehicle was got surveyed and the matter was got investigated through a licensed, Authorized Surveyor and Independent Person viz.“Real Claim Investigator”. As per report it was found that complainant had made an application to the police on 20.07.2016 stating that he was going on 18.07.2016 from Badhra to Dadri and when reached near village Bharvi all of sudden vehicle no. HR-55P-9592 caught fire due to short circuit and informed the fire brigade on 20.07.2016 but the vehicle was burnt before the fire brigade reached. DDR dated 20.07.2016 in PS .Sadar, Dadri and information to the company was given on 22.07.2016 after four days of occurrence of incidence which is violation of policy condition. As per investigation conducted by “Real Claims Investigator” it was found that complainant had himself brought the fuel from the nearby petrol pump after taking a plastic pot/canine from the nearby hotel and poured it on the vehicle and set it on fire and this fire was not accidental one and not caused by short circuit and this fact was supported in written statements given by the eye witnesses who had seen the burning vehicle and this fact was further strengthened as the matter was not reported on the same time/day to the police and the company. Merely having a report from the fire station is not enough and genuine as to show that the vehicle was burnt due to natural cause of fire or accidental fire or by self fire. Moreover, the complainant has committed cheatings in the transfer papers of vehicle in his name as the notarized affidavit and transfer papers of vehicle are in the name of Ravinder who purchased this vehicle from Sonia Travels but the complainant has managed to get his own name inserted as owner of the burnt vehicle by cutting  and overwriting made on the papers. Further, the complainant is 100% disabled, how he was driving the vehicle and no where he had mentioned in his application to the police or before the fire station that some other person  Jhab Lal son of Deep Chand was driving the vehicle but after some time he changed his version stating that Jhab Lal was driver on that day which makes the case more suspicious. Hence, it is a violation of the Policy Condition and also tantamount to misrepresentation of material facts and complainant is trying to extract undue money from the insurance policy. It is further averred that the competent authority after due application of mind and papers available on the file and taking into consideration that the complainant had failed in clarifying the queries of the company, the claim file was closed. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                The complainant in his evidence has submitted documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C12 and closed his evidence on 02.04.2019. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R15 and closed his evidence on dated 10.6.2019.  Ld. Counsel for the OPs has tendered additional evidence Ex.RW-1/A and Ex.RW-2/A and closed additional evidence on 31.03.2023

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by both the parties as well as the material aspects of the case very carefully. Written submission submitted by learned counsel for OP has also been considered.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.

6.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP-insurance company argued in the light of reply and documents placed on record and reiterated contents thereof.

7.                We have gone through the facts and documents  presented and arguments advanced before this Commission. The vehicle No. HR-51P-9592 was insured from the OP vide insurance policy No.3368/00794108/000/00 for the period from 18.03.2016 to 17.03.2017. During the currency  of the policy the vehicle caught fire on 18.06.2016 and the same was reported to the police and fire brigade on 20.06.2016. Subsequently, claim was filed with the OP on 22.06.2016 vide claim No.3368066844. Consequent thereupon the insuance company got the claim/ facts investigation through Real Claims Investigators who submitted its report dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure R10), wherein some important facts were mentioned. Conclusion of the report are reproduced here under:-

“From the above facts It’s proved that vehicle number HR-55P/9592 belongs to Mr. Anand but transferred from RTA by cutting the name of Mr.Ravinder, Pen and writing also changed.

He transferred the vehicle on his own name without purchasing. After that he got finance from Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Limited. As per eye witnesses’ statement, he had fired his vehicle by taking the petrol nearby HP Petrol Pump.

Date of Loss is 18.07.2016, Date of Fire Brigade Report is 20.07.2016, Date of DDR is 20.07.2016 and intimated  to insurer on 20.07.2016

Insured did not provide previous year policy.

As per written statement of insured that the said vehicle had been purchased in the March 2016 for Rs.3,25,000/- and he got insurance of the said vehicle for Rs.25,000/- while IDV is Rs.3,50,000/-. At the time of incidence, back side of driver seat was assembled while last seat was un-assembled. As per photographs of damaged vehicle last seat was un-assembled.

As per visit at RTA and checked the transfer papes file and we found that Notarized Affidavit, Form 28,29 &30 were on the name of Ravinder  and cutting was on this name and mentioned Anand. Pen and writing were changed. We also noticed in the permit register that Permit Number 225/Taxi/2016 also given to another vehicle as well as HR-55P/9592.

As per DDR insured was also in the vehicle  at the time of incidence but as per copy of handicapped certificate for the persons with disabilities vide number-120 dated 17.02.2010 issued from G.H.Bhiwani, Mr. Anand is 100% disable and insured also told that he could not drive.

As per earning point of view the said vehicle was used by insured for his personal usage while the said vehicle is for carrying passenger vehicle. He is having 1 ½ Kila agriculture land and his annual income is Rs.40,000/-. How can it possible that he had purchased the said vehicle for Rs.3,25,000/- and after purchasing the vehicle, he did not use for commercial purposes while his annual income is very low.

As per written statement of eye witness, petrol pump recording and notarized affidavit, visit at RTA Bhiwani, visit at spot, oral information got recording this claim all the witnesses, statements and evidences are against the insured which clearly seems that Mr. Anand by making fraud, he got transferred the vehicle on his own name, got finance and fired the himself and lodged the claim for insurance claim amount.

This point is also noted that at the time of incidence, original documents were not inside the vehicle and all are safe.”

8.                The surveyor has placed on record affidavits of relevant parties/witnesses in support of its observations/findings. The report of Real Claims Investigators was not controverted by the complainant.

The above facts takes us to be conclusion that material facts were misrepresented”and the fire was not accidental due to short circuit but the documents placed on record lead to the conclusionthat the vehicle was burnt by pouring on fire by the complainant himself and filed claim with the insurance company to get benefit of insurance cover.

9.