Delhi

North East

CC/90/2019

Smt. Sapna Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 90/19

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Mrs. Sapna Rani, W/o Jitender Singh Pahal, R/o H.No. A-165, Raj Park Sultanpuri, Delhi		Complainant
		Versus
	1.                     2.         3.	ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office At: 1st Floor, Unit-101, Station Box, At Metro Station, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi 110095 Branch office at: Fourth Parsavnath Capital Tower, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, New Delhi 110001   Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 (Deleted vide order dated 16.12.2019)   Saya Automobiles Ltd., Unit No. G/17/20, Jakson Crown Heights, Plot No. 381, Twin District Centre, Sector 10, Rohini, Delhi (Deleted vide order dated 16.12.2019)		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		19.09.2019 10.05.2023 12.09.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a Maruti Baleno Delta Petrol car from the Opposite Party No. 3 which was duly insured by the Opposite Party No. 1. On 15.06.2019, Complainant along with her husband visited the house of the relative at Nangloi, Delhi. The said vehicle was parked on the road side. It is her case that when they entered the house of the relative then someone told them that the said car had caught fire. It is her case that due to the fire incident,front side of the said vehicle was burning and the engine of the said vehicle was completed damaged. After that the Complainant reported the fire incident to the Police and Opposite Parties for seeking the compensation of the damaged vehicle. It is her case that Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 inspected the said vehicle and vide an email dated 26.06.2019, Opposite Party No. 1 rejected the claim on the ground that “The damage to the vehicle was due to the electrical failure which does not fall under the purview of insurance”. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 were putting the blame to each other with malafide intentions to ignore their legal liability towards the damages caused to the Complainant. On 19.08.2019, Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but they did not respond. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pass the claim of the Complainant. Complainant has also prayed for  Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment along with 18 % interest and Rs. 50,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on its part. It is stated that the source of fire seemed to be an internal source that is at the wiring of the speakers present in the trunk. The insured vehicle was fitted with external fitments like audio systems, speakers etc. which were installed in the vehicle from a local garage. It is stated that there was local wirings found in the vehicle. It is stated that it was concluded by the investigator that there was a short circuit at battery due to externally fitted amplifier and speaker. Therefore, it is clear that there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party   No. 1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.The Complainant has also relied upon the expert opinion dated 21.09.2022 given by Brilliant Forensic Investigation Pvt. Ltd.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

5. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Deepak Bansal, Manager Legal, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that her vehicle caught fire as a result thereof damage was caused to the vehicle. It is her case that the vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 1 has wrongly rejected the claim. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that the vehicle caught fire as there was some local fitting/installation of amplifier speakers etc. in the car. It is the case of Opposite Party No. 1 that the wiring was also not proper and the installation of the said speaker/amplifier etc. was done by some local garage. It is the case of Opposite Party No. 1 that thus there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and for this reason the claim was rejected. To prove this stand the Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Deepak Bansal, wherein he has supported the version of the Opposite Party No. 1 in this regard.
7. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that it had rejected the claim as there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The relevant clause of the policy is reproduced as under:

“The Company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of:-

1. Consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failures or breakages.”

 

8. The Opposite Party No. 1 has not led any scientific evidence that the fire took place due to the electrical short in the battery because of the local installation of the amplifier speaker etc. But the Opposite Party No. 1 did not lead any cogent evidence in this regard. On the other hand, the reliance has been placed upon the expert opinion 31.09.2022 given by Brilliant Forensic Investigation Pvt. Ltd. This opinion has not been challenged by the Opposite Party No. 1. The relevant part of the said opinion is reproduced as under:

“RESULT OF EXAMINATION/OPINION

Based on a thorough and in-depth inspection of the burnt car, bearing registration no. DL-11-CB-3769, followed by search, identification, collection, and analysis of physical, documentary, and oral evidence collected from the incident site; it is concluded that the fire in the said car reported to have occurred on 15^th June 2019 at Nangloi No. 3.

1. Was not on an account of short circuit in the wires of Baleno car bearing Registration No. DL-11-CB-3769.
2. Was not on an account of mechanical, combustion or electrical failures of any component installed in the engine compartment of Baleno car bearing Registration No. DL-11-CB-3769.
3. Was on account of external burning substances which were burning below the tip of the bonnet.”

 

9. Further, the email dated 26.06.2019 sent by Shri Sarang Bansal of Maurti Suzuki India Ltd. to the Complainant. As per the said report the fire was due to some external factor only. The relevant part of the said mail is reproduced as under:-

“Thus, in our considered opinion, based on the available material, we conclude that the cause of fire was not due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle or malfunction of any part but due to some external factor only.”

 

10. Therefore, in view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that Opposite Party No. 1 has failed to prove its case and it is therefore concluded that it has wrongly rejected the claim of the Complainant.
11. The Complainant has prayed for directing the Opposite Parties to compensate her regarding the loss caused to the vehicle due to fire. However, the Complainant has not quantified the amount of loss nor led any evidence in this regard as to how much loss was caused to the vehicle. It is her case that front portion of the car was burnt and engine was completely burnt. She has not led any evidence that the engine of the car was completely burnt nor the Complainant has filed any repair estimate etc. The Complainant has filed photographs of the burnt vehicle which shows that some front portion of the vehicle has been burnt except that everything else appears to be okay. Hence, in view of the said facts and circumstances, compensation of Rs. 60,000/- is granted to the Complainant on account of loss to the vehicle which shall be paid by the Opposite Party No. 1 along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No. 1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant on account mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
12. Order announced on 12.09.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President