District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 360/2021.
Date of Institution: 22.07.2021.
Date of Order:05.06.2023.
Vinod Kumar son of Shri Kanchi Lal, Resident of House NO. A-7, Near Shiv Mandir Palla No.2, Jharia Market amar Nagar, Faridabad Aadhar card NO. 7436 6799 8032.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mailing address: 6th floor, Interface 16, Office No. 601-602, New Linking road, Malad (West) Mumbai – 400 064 through its authorized person.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Corporate Office: ICICI Lombard House NO. 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400 025 through its authorized person.
3. Mahadev Motors Pvt. Ltd., 13/3 Main Mathura Road, Faridabad through its authorized person.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Rajesh Baisla, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Dabaas, counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2.
Sh. Harish Kumar Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the owner of the vehicle I-20 car bearing registration No. HR-51-BU-7171 which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.3 amounting to Rs.8,41,900/- and the said vehicle was on finance and the complainant regularly and continuously making the loan installment to the finance company without any delay and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 w.e.f. 3.9.2020 to 2.09.2022 (midnight) vide policy No. 3001/O/HI-11218714/00/000 and the complainant had paid the premium amount to the opposite parties in respect of the said vehicle. During the insurance period the vehicle of the complainant had been burnt due to the manufacturing defect on dated 3.5.2021. Regarding the said incident the complainant intimated to opposite parties os.1 & 2 and submitted all the documents with photographs of the vehicle for getting the insured amount of the vehicle in question in respect of the claim number MOT11003934 which was given by the representative of the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 but the opposite parties did not pass the claim of the insured amount of the vehicle to the complainant and intentionally rejected the claim of the complainant by making the false and concocted story with an intention not to make the insured amount of the damaged of the vehicle in question. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) either to make the insured amount of the vehicle or to handover the new branded vehicle to the complainant and if the opposite parties failed, then to return of the cost of the vehicle i.e8,41,900/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant.
b) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant neither had any cause of action nor locus standi in lodging of the present complaint before this Hon’ble Commission, reason being, as a matter of record, on 06.05.2021 the complainant had intimated the insurance company at its call centre with regards to fire caused to his car No. HR-51BU-717 and subsequently claim form was also submitted, wherein, driver had been claimed as himself. After that the insurance company had deputed an IRDA Licence Surveyor in order to assess the loss to the vehicle in question. Innturn, after survey, the said surveyor had submitted his survey report to the insurance company by assessing the loss subject to his remarks mentioned therein. Thereafter, the insurance company had got investigated the matter through an independent investigator viz., Sai Claims Investigators so as to ascertain the veracity and genuineness of the claim. During investigation, the said investigator had recorded the statement too of the complainant-insured & his brother in law Sanjeev as well as obtained the photographs of the insured vehicle. After completion of investigation the said investigator had submitted his investigation report to the insurance company, whereby, final conclusion was as: “As per technical report no manufacturing defect found in it, whereas the headlamps wiring found tampered as non-genuine headlights found fitted in the vehicle. Fuse for front fog lamps & head lamp found blown suspected after wiring insulation melted short circuit happened in it, all the ground points found in proper tighten condition. Vehicle found damaged from fire on Front LH side. Due to heat many plastic parts melted. The cause of fire, it was suspected that LHS fog lamp bulb was dislocated and lying on fender lining due to previous damage happened to LHS bumper. Heat from fog lamp bulb caused LHS fender lining melt and later initiated fire in it,, not due to any manufacturing defects so case seems to be repudiation”. At the time of the processing of the claim, on the basis of available documents, at the end of insurance company manner of incident & version of the complainant was seem doubtful thus in order to ascertain the further veracity and genuineness of the claim in depth the insurance company had deputed an independent technical/forensic investigator viz. Bombay Forensic was deputed, in turn, after forensic investigation the said investigator had submitted his “fire forensic report vide dated 24.5.2021 to the insurance company, whereby, final conclusion was as: Based on the Fire Forensic and Analysis of the fire affected vehicle of incident followed by search, identification, collection, testing and analysis of vehicle of incident followed by search, identification, collection, testing and analysis of physical evidences, scrutiny of documentary evidence/digital evidence, it was concluded that:
1. The incident of fire reported to had occurred on dated 03.05.2021 at around 09.00p.m. at Arniya Mansoorpur, Uttar Pradesh – 203132 in vehicle registration No. HR51BU7171 was:
a) Not due to natural causes, b) Not due to self ignition, c) Not due to sabotage cause but, d) due to electrical malfunction cause.
2, Fire occurred due to electrical malfunction in the wiring of the LHS foglamp of the insured vehicle.
3. As per the service history record analysis, it was observed that accidental repairing related to LHS lamp assembly had been done twice in the insured’s vehicle.
4. In this case, fire would had occurred due to improper installation and repairing done of the LHS lamp assembly wiring.
5. Based on the fire pattern forensic analysis, it was observed that the fire origin was single point and fir originated from LHS foglamp wiring portion and propagated towards the fuse box area.
Note:
1. The statements of the insured about the incident scenario found different with respect to the order of events and do not correlate with each other. This indicates that the insured was either hiding the actual facts or was misrepresenting the fact of the said incident.
2. Also, insured’s brother-in-law statement found contradicting when compared with the insured’s call history record.
3. Considering the contradicting statement s mentioned above, insured would not be the actual driver at the time of incidence.
From the said report as well as the other document sit was established that the version of the complainant was contrary to the actual manner of incident & damages resulted thereto. Thus the complainant had misrepresented the true & material facts, particularly as to cause of fire in insured car, by concealing the same in order to cover up their wrongs so established from the investigation report & Forensic Science report (Damage to the vehicle was due to electrical failure (Unauthorized tampering to Electrical accessories) which did not fall under the purview of insurance. Electrical accessories i.e Unauthorized fitting in electrical system was not recommended by the manufacturer as this type of unauthorized patching were prone to short circuit and in turn causes fire) so got conducted so as to ascertain the veracity and genuineness of the claim, resultantly, violation of condition NO.8 of the insurance policy. Since, such intimation constitute violation of terms & conditions of the insurance policy, hence, the insurance company have arrived at the decision in treating such claim as NO Claim vide letter of intimation dated 16.6.2021 which decision cannot be termed unconscionable at all. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No. 3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that on 05.05.2021, the complainant visited over the workshop of the answering opposite party, alongwith his vehicle/Elite I-20 bearing Regn. No. HR-51-BU-7171 which was already in burning condition. After that the answering opposite party informed the opposite party No.1 insurance company and then surveyor of opposite party No.1 visited over the workshop of the answering opposite party on 07.05.2021. The said surveyor stated to obtain report of technical expert from Hyundai Motors India Limited. Accordingly, a team from Hyundai Motors India Limited, came over the workshop of answering opposite party on 01.06.2022 who inspected the vehicle in question and they gave their opinion on 01.06.2021,stating therein that the vehicle was thoroughly inspected for alleged cause of fire and during inspection no manufacturing defect found in it, whereas the headlamps wiring found tampered as non-genuine headlights found fitted in the vehicle. Fuse for front fog lamps & head lamp found blown suspected after wiring insu8lation melted short circuit happened in it, all the ground points found in proper tighten condition. Vehicle found damaged from fire on front LH side. Due to heat many plastic parts melted. The cause of fire, it was suspected that LHS fog lamp blub was dislocated and lying on fender lining due to previous damages happened to LHS bumper. Heat from fog lamp bulb caused LHS fender lining melt and later initiated fir in it, not due to any manufacturing defects. On the basis of which the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refused to compensate the complainant. Even at that time the answering opposite party contacted the complainant and asked whether they did the repairing work of his car or not on 30.06.2021,, then the complainant asked the answering opposite party to get repair his damaged car. Even the complainant gave in writing on 13.07.2021, for the same. Accordingly, the answering opposite party got repaired the damaged vehicle of the complainant. After getting repaired the car of the complainant, to his entire satisfaction, the answering opposite party issued bill NO. B20220603 dated 20.09.2021 of Rs.2,80,000/- to the name of complainant, out of which Rs.2,59,285.45 was in lieu of replacement of parts of the damaged vehicle and Rs.20,714.90 ps. were on account of labour charges. The complainant made the payment of full and final amount to the answering opposite party and gave delivery of the said car to the complainant. Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & another. with the prayer to: a) either to make the insured amount of the vehicle or to handover the new branded vehicle to the complainant and if the opposite parties failed, then to return of the cost of the vehicle i.e8,41,900/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant. b) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Vinod Kumar. Ex.C1 (colly) A to E – emails, Ex.C2 Colly F to H – Private car standalone own damage policy, Ex.C-3 – Pollution certificate, Ex.C4 Colly – Thermal investigation report – basic information,, Ex.C-5 - insurance policy,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 – Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Rohan Mishra, Manager (Legal), M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, Red Fort Capital Parsvnath Tower, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, Ex.R-1 – RC, Ex.R-2 - Private car standalone own damage policy, Ex.R-3 – claim form, Ex.R-4 – investigation report, Ex.R-5 – letter written by the complainant to opposite party,, Ex.R-6 – photo, Ex.R-7 – statement of Vinod Kumar, EX.R-8 – Motor survey report,, Ex.R-9 (colly) – photos, Ex.R-10 – Repair order (dealer copy),, Ex.R-11 – OLD-B-Shop, Ex.R-12 – Fire Forensic report, Ex.R-13 – letter dated June 16,2021;
As per evidence of opposite party No.3 Ex.RW3/A – affidavit of Aamir Kapoor, Authorized person of M/s. Mahadev Motors Private Limited, 13/3, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, Ex.RW3/1 - certificate, Ex.RW3/2 to 7 – emails, Ex.RW3/8 (colly) page 1 to 18) – invoice summary.
7. In this case, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer either to make the insured amount of the vehicle or to handover the new branded vehicle to the complainant and if the opposite parties failed, then to return of the cost of the vehicle i.e8,41,900/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant..
8. As per the evidence led by the complainant, the vehicle in question was damaged badly due to fire. It is also an admitted that the loss of the vehicle in question is due to fire. The counsel for the complainant argued at length and stated at Bar that they have already fixed the vehicle and paid the billed amount to opposite party No.3, thereafter the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant without any reason.
9. After going through the evidence led by the opposite parties, the claim of the complainant was repudiated due to short circuit of the wiring installed light from local market not from the authorized dealer by the complainant. But there is no evidence led by the opposite party that this fire or short circuit was due to that particular light installed by the complainant from local market.. There is no expert report was submitted by the opposite parties when the vehicle in question is comprehensively insured and the complainant is paying the huge amount of the premium to the insurance company. No chance to decline the claim of the complainant for this reason. Hence, the complaint is allowed.
10. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay the amount of the complainant which he has paid to opposite party No.3 already. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs5500/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 05.06.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
