Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/230/2021

Ankit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurnace Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Y. S. Phogat

08 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                              

                                                                   Complaint No.: - 230 of 2021.

Date of Institution: - 06.09.2021.

                                                                   Date of Decision: - 08.08.2024.

 

Ankit Kumar, aged about 28 years S/o Sh. Hanuman Singh, resident of village Mandoli, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., having its office at SCO 124,125, Madhya Marg, Sector-8C, Sector-8 Chandigarh, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., having one of its office at No.208, 2^nd Floor, Sewa Corporate Park, M.G. Road, Gurugram-122001, 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 Y.S.Phogat Advocate for complainant.

Shri Vinod Chahar, Advocate for Ops.

 

ORDER: -

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that his Swift Dzire LDI BSIV bearing registration No. HR-66A-8448 was insured with the OPs vide policy No.2314203359585200000 from 18.03.2020 to 17.03.2021. It was averred that in the night of 10/11.01.2021, the maternal cousin viz. Rajender had received a telephonic message that his father suddenly got ill hence he had been immediately called by his family members. It was further averred that Rajender took the said car owned by the complainant and proceeds towards his village Dhab Dhani. It was alleged that in the early morning at about 2:00AM on 11.01.2021 when the complainant was in the way between village Harodi & Kaluwala, there was heavy fog and some stray animal suddenly came in front of the car and struck due to which caught fire and car totally burnt due to sudden fire.  The complainant called the fire brigade and police. The complainant informed about the incident to the police and DDR No. 03 dated 11.01.2021 was got registered in P.P.Atela. It was further averred that the complainant had lodged the claim with the OPs alongwith all the required documents, but the OPs failed in settling his claim despite repeated requests. All the documents were supplied by the complainant to the surveyor and OPs but despite that the OPs had repudiated the lawful claim of the complainant vide letter dated 26.02.2021. It was further averred that a legal notice dated 29.06.2021 was got issued to the OPs, but to no effect.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs, he suffers mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OPs no. 1 & 2 had filed written statement stating that the complainant has got his car bearing registration no. HR-66A-8448 insured for one year w.e.f. 18.03.2020 to 17.03.2021.  It was submitted that the insured declared value of the car was Rs. 2,60,433/-. The claim regarding the alleged incident was received by the OPs on 12.01.2021 whereas claim was assigned claim No.C230021031136 while incident took place on 10.01.2021.  It is submitted that after receiving the intimation, the OPs deputed Surveyor to carry out the survey of the burnt vehicle who submitted report alongwith photos. The opposite party also appointed an Independent Fire Forensic Engineers for investigation into the alleged Fire accident. The Independent Expert has concluded that the origin of Fire is at multiple locations, and the parts were extensively damaged of the subject vehicle which are called demonstrative evidence confirming that subject vehicle met with an accident prior to the fire and not repaired. He further submitted that the cause of fire is intentional, because all the parts which are vulnerable to cause a primary ignition in automotive fires were intact, the flow of combustive liquid to a distance of 6 meters from the subject vehicle was the significant evidence to confirm that additional accelerants were used to torch the subject vehicle. The metal folds, paint transfers, metal loss, tearing of exterior metal endorse a truth that subject vehicle had collision prior to the fire which were not repaired. That claim was reviewed and it was observed that the damages on parts claimed in the alleged accident are unrelated to the cause of accident as reported the damages do not commensurate with the cause of loss as mentioned by complainant. Hence, it is a violation of the Motor Package 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 as no claim and intimation in this regard was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 26.02.2021. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                The complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex CW1/A, and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C13 and closed his evidence on 20.01.2023. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.RW-1/A, Ex.RW-2/A documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on dated 21.12.2023. 

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.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. They submitted that the car in question of the complainant was duly insured with the OPs from 18.03.2020 to 17.03.2021.  During the currency of insurance cover the car of the complainant burnt on 10/11.01.2021 in accident and fully damaged.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs but they did not pay the claim to the complainant despite repeated requests.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of their reply.  He submitted that car in question of the complainant was insured with OPs for IDV of Rs. 2,60,433/-.  After getting the intimation regarding the incident, the OP deputed the surveyor,.  The surveyor asked the complainant to submit the requisite documents (i.e. Repair estimate, fire department register copy/report, vehicle survey history, both keys of insured vehicle, technical report from manufacturer on cause of fire and purchase proof of insured vehicle) but the complainant has failed to submit the same.  Thus the claim file of the complainant was closed as no claim taking ground that (a) documents not submitted (b) damages not matching with cause of loss (c) misrepresentation of material facts based on Investigation Report (Ex.R5) and Automotive Origin and Cause Forensic Investigation Report dated 03.02.2021 issued by M/s Zubair & Co., Mr. Zuber Ali Khan, Fire Investigation Technician (IAAI), Accident Reconstruction Expert which is attached (Ex.R7)  which states that “based on a thorough and in depth investigation of the partially burnt/damaged Maruti Swift Dzire Car No. HR-66-A-8448 followed by search, identification, collection and analysis of physical documentary and oral evidence, collection of circumstantial evidence from the persons associated with the incident, it was concluded that the fire in the said car reported to have occurred on 11.01.2021 was not an accident of accidental, mechanical, combustion or electric failure of any component installed in the compartment; was not on account of leakage of fuel lines, during reported incident of collision of the car but was on account of setting fire to an already damaged/dented car which had halted after colliding with stray animal-by using certain mild explosive or flammable/combustible material to initiate and propagate fire inside the cabin of car in an attempt to stage manage an incident of fire; which later spread to involve the entire car due to presence of combustible and flammable material in the car and in the last, it is mentioned in the aforesaid report that taking into consideration the means, motive and opportunity to cause such a deliberate fire, the possibility of the owner or/and the driver being directly or in directly responsible for its ignition, initiation and propagation cannot be ruled out.” We have observed that neither the counsel for complainant has brought on record any documentary evidence to controvert the above report of forensic lab nor could convince this Commission against the above mentioned contents of forensic report. The complainant has not mentioned any concrete evidence in favour of his averments that accident had taken place due to striking of vehicle with stray animal which caused fire in the vehicle other than DDR. No proof of intimation to Fire Brigade was submitted.

                   We have examined the documents placed on record by the parties and arguments advanced by their counsels. The complainant has failed to prove that fire took place because of accident and no proof for intimation to fire brigade or fire report produced to this Commission. Also no counter evidence and averments were made to the observations and conclusion of Survey Report and Forensic Investigation Report which contain that fire was not accidental but the vehicle was burnt. As regards whatsapp conversation submitted by the complainant the same are in connection with follow-up for inspection and settlement of claim. There is no conversation in regard to cause of fire.

                   Per Contra, the Ops have submitted Investigation Report (Ex.R5), Automotive Fire Origin & Cause Report dated 03.02.2021 prepared by Zubair & Co. (Ex.R7). The extracts of Report related to origin of Fire and cause of fire are given hereunder:

 

ORIGIN OF FIRE

                   On our examination of the subject vehicle we conclude that the origin of fire is at multiple locations, and the parts which are extensively damaged of the subject vehicle which is called demonstrative evidence confirming that subject vehicle met with an accident prior to the fire and not repaired.

                   We have not observed any skid marks on the road at the location to believe that insured suddenly noticed group of wild animals on the road, because when the driver noticed the sudden obstacle on the road he will apply the sudden breaks which lead the skid marks on the road.

CAUSE OF FIRE

                   The cause of fire is intentional, because all the parts which are vulnerable to cause of primary ignition in automotive fires are intact, the flow of combustive liquid to a distance of 6 meters from the subject vehicle is the significant evidence to confirm that additional accelerants are used to torch the subject vehicle.

Further the OPs vide its repudiation letter dated 26.02.2021 (Ex.R4) have  inter alia, have given this observation as under:-

“As per your written statement that the insured vehicle was hit into stray animals and instantly caught to fire due to unknown reasons is not matching with the damages on it. Moreover other unrelated / old and accumulated damages were observed as follows:

• Towing/Chain dents were observed on both side bodied towards front and rear also which indicates that the insured vehicle was towed before this incident.
• LHS front door found badly mutilated and seems to be damaged intentionally.
• LHS side body found badly rusted and pitted.
• Damage/bent to front cross member was so that it was hit from an object from under side.
• RHS apron found dented/damaged previously.
• Fuel lines found open and cut.
• Internal parts viz ABS system found broken which is not possible to happen in this incident.
• Parts viz Battery, Stepney (Spare wheel), tool kit found missing, seems intentionally taken out from IV before fire.

The above facts takes us to be conclusion that material facts were misrepresented.”

The complainant has not given any counter and his justification to the said observation.

Under the abovementioned circumstances, we find no merit in the complaint of complainant. Thus the present complaint of complainant hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.