BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.347 of 2022
Date of Instt. 20.09.2022
Date of Decision: 14.05.2024
Vikas Duggal S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, resident of Ward No.156, Ali Mohalla, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Officer at 2nd Floor, Nirmal Complex, G. T. Road, Jalandhar, through its Branch Manager.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Smt. Harleen Kaur, Adv. & Miss Anchita, Adv. Counsels for the Complainant.
Sh. R. K. Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OP.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is register owner of Car bearing Registration no.PB 08 CB 0156, make Skoda Rapid Ambition 1.6 MPI MT. The said car has been beneficial used by him for personal mode of transportations. The said car bearing registration no.PB 08 CB 0156 was insured from the OP for the period of 26.02.2022 to 25.02.2013. The comprehensive/package policy vide Policy no.M0181151 was issued on payment of the premium amount Rs.24,958/- to OP. On 02.07.2022 unfortunately above said car caught fire and damage was caused to battery or other equipment of car. Hence the car was taken to Krishana Autos, authorized dealer of Skoda at Jalandhar. Where total cost of repair estimate was made for an amount Rs.2,76,627/-. On 04.07.2022, claim was accordingly intimated to the opposite party vide claim no. 37Q2070, SBU-C7. The OP deputed its surveyor Mr. Sunil Chawla, who inspected said car and later submitted its report with the OP. The complainant was assured by the OP that his claim would be settled at earliest, after approval from higher authority, they would be able to pay out the claim amount. The complainant has number of time personally visited the office of OP, but time and again only false assurances were given by the officials of the OP. But on 25.08.2022 vide it letter, the OP arbitrarily repudiated the genuine insurance claim of the complainant on illegal ground. The OP alleged that the complainant has violated terms or condition of the policy. The OP alleged that said there is violation GR 52 and condition no.4 of insurance policy. Due to use of high power i.e. 90-100 watt bulb instead of 55-60 bulb and extra horn installation by tempering wire, short circuit occurred as it was connected with battery, which caught fire. Therefore, repudiation of claim. Such frivolous grounds are totally unjustified, because authorized dealer has clearly mentioned in its work sheet/repair order that they checked and found HL wiring is OK, problem occurred from battery. Furthermore 90-100 watt LED bulb and installation of extra horn as alleged does not over load electric supply. Furthermore the fire took place in day time, when light was switched off and horn is occasionally been used, hence no question arises of over loading. Only possible reason would have been extra ordinary heat wave due to global warming might the cause of such fire outbreak. At last, there are no such violation of GR 52 of MV Act and condition no.4 of insurance policy as falsely been alleged. The OP has interpreted said provision in arbitrary manner in mischievous way. The installation of LED bulb and extra horn does not amount to alteration and modification of car. Further the OP has failed to provide any such specified terms and conditions to the complainant along with insurance policy. The insurance claim of the complainant is genuine one, same should have been reimbursed. The act and conduct of the OP has caused a great mental agony, tension, harassment and hardship to the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the insurance claim for an amount of Rs.2,76,627/- as per the terms of the insurance policy. Further, OP be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through its counsel and filed its reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party, as such the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that on intimation of loss, an IRDA approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor namely Sh. Sunil Chawla was deputed to conduct the survey. Surveyor & Loss Assessor Sh. Sunil Chawla Conducted the survey and submitted his Motor Final Survey Report dated 28-07-2022 with the OP with a finding that the vehicle caught fire due to internal short circuiting and on inspection it was observed that the insured had tempered the manufacturer wiring and had installed the accessories i.e. LED Lights and Horns and the detail of Accessories installed is as under:-
i. The insured had installed the external wiring and tempered the manufacturer wiring to install LED lights fitted on Head Lights of the car.
ii. The insured had installed the Horns of after Market and the wiring was Taped.
iii. The insured had installed the bulbs of 100/90W which is of higher Watt other than as recommended and supplied by the manufacturer 1.O 55/60W
and in view of the above the Surveyor and Loss Assessor has given the finding that the vehicle caught fire due to internal Short Circuiting.
It is further averred that on receipt of Motor Final Survey report, it was found that bulbs which were used in the headlight were of higher power i.e. 90-100 Watt (as per company 55-60 watt bulb provided in this model) and extra horns also installed by tempering the manufacturer fitted wiring assembly and connected to the battery and due to overload of electrical supply, the short circuit occurred in the vehicle and caught fire. Evidently fire occurred due to over load of electrical supply by extra fitting of non OEM (original equipment manufacturer) electric equipment AND extra fitment was not reported to the insurance company for coverage of the policy. Hence, the claim repudiated due violation of Section 52 of Motor Vehicle Act & Condition No. 4 of Motor Vehicle Policy after application of mind and the complainant was informed vide letter of repudiation dated 25.08.2022. The Section 52 and Condition No.4 of the insurance policy have been reproduced in letter of repudiation dated 25-08-2022. The complainant has made alteration in the vehicle by installing high watt LED bulbs and extra horn by tempering with the manufacturer wiring resulting in loss as the insured/complainant did not take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage rather himself got the installed the high watt bulbs against the recommended bulbs and installed extra horn by tempering with the manufacturer wiring in an unauthorized manner and without getting the alteration endorsed in the RC and without getting the same incorporated in the insurance policy issued against the said vehicle. The complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs, as such the compliant is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that there is neither any deficiency in service nor negligence nor unfair trade practice, as repudiating the claim as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy does not amount to any deficiency in service or negligence or unfair trade practice. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy vide letter dated 25-08-2022, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is owner of the car Skoda Rapid car as per Registration Certificate and it is also admitted that the car bearing No. PB-08-CB-0156 was insured with the OP vide insurance policy bearing No.MO181151 for the period 26-02-2022 to 25-02-2023 in the name of Vikas Duggal with IDV Rs.2,53,700/-. The factum with regard to intimation of loss dated 02.07.2022 is also admitted and the factum with regard to lodging of claim and rejecting the same is also admitted. It is also admitted that the Surveyor was appointed who submitted his report, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. As per Ex.C-1, the complainant is the registered owner of the car bearing registration No.PB08CB 0156. As per Ex.C-4, the vehicle was insured from the OP for the period 26.02.2022 to 25.02.2023. The complainant has alleged that on 02.07.2022, the car caught fire and damage was caused to the battery and other equipments of the car. The car was taken to Krishna Autos the authorized dealer of Skoda, at Jalandhar, where the total cost of repair estimate was made for Rs.2,76,627/-. The estimate sheet has been proved as Ex.C-5. The claim was intimated to the OP, but the same was repudiated vide Ex.C6. Perusal of Ex.C-6 shows that the claim for the vehicle No.PB08CV0156 was rejected on the grounds, which is as under:-
‘As per through inspection, we have observed that the bulb which was used in the headlight is of higher power Le 90-100 Watt (as per company 55-60 Watt bulb provided in this model) and extra horns also installed by tampering the manufacturer fitted wiring assy. This equipment's were connected to the battery, due to over load of electrical supply, short circuit occurred in the said vehicle and caught fire. As the fire occurred due to overload of electrical supply by extra fitting of non OEM electrical equipment's’.
7. In the written statement also the OP has alleged that the claim was rightly rejected as the complainant had tempered the manufacturer wiring and has installed the accessories i.e. LED Lights and Horns in his car. As per the report of the Surveyor, the vehicle caught fire due to internal short circuiting. The bulbs used in the headlight were of higher power which has led to the accident with catching fire. The contention of the OPs was that the fire occurred due to overloading of electrical supply by extra fitting of non OEM (original equipment manufacturer) electric equipment. The OP has relied upon the report of the Surveyor Ex.OP-2. As per the report Ex.OP-2, the Surveyor has given the comments that the underwriters are brought to kind notice that the vehicle caught fire due to internal short circuiting and on inspecting the vehicle, it was observed that the insured had tempered the manufacturer wiring and had installed the accessories i.e. LED Lights and Horns. The OP has also relied upon the GR 52 of Motor Vehicles Act. The condition No.4 of the policy schedule, which has been proved on the record Ex.OP-3, which reads as under:-
" [52. Alteration in motor vehicle. - (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer…………….”
Since any Alteration/Modification in the vehicle is to be suitably endorsed in the RC, the same needs to be also incorporated in the Motor Insurance Policy issued against said vehicle.
Condition no.4 of policy schedule "The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's own risk."
As per this clause, the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safe guard the vehicle from loss or damage and any alteration or modification in the vehicle is to be suitable endorsed in the RC. The Surveyor, who has given the report has not mentioned his educational qualifications in the report Ex.OP-2 as to whether he is electrically expert i.e. electric engineer or not. As per his report, the vehicle caught fire due to internal short circuiting as the complainant had tempered the manufacturing wiring. He has not mentioned anywhere as to how he has to this conclusion that the complainant had manipulated and tempered with the manufacture wiring. This has not been explained by the Surveyor in his report. It has been mentioned in the written statement that the complainant has used the high power bulb and has installed extra horn by tempering the wire. There is no photograph on the record to come to the conclusion that there is any tempering of the wire for installing the extra horn. Even otherwise, as per the allegations of the OP, the bulb of 90-100 watt has been used instead of 55-60 Watt bulb. There is no expert opinion of any technical person to show that the bulb of 90-100 Watt has been used. The wiring or bulb was not got tested by the Surveyor. If for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the bulb of 90-100 watt has been used by the complainant it cannot the overload electric supply as alleged by the OP again there is no opinion of any other expert to this effect. As per the allegations in the complaint, the accident took place during the day time and during day time generally the lights of the vehicle remain switched off and horn is not frequently used, therefore, the arguments of the OP that the vehicle was over loaded electrically are not tenable. As per the report of the Krishna Auto Sales Ex.C-5, after diagnose, they checked and found HR wiring were OK and as per their opinion, the problem occurred from battery. Thus, as per this opinion there was a problem in the battery because of which the fire occurred and not from the tempering of the wires as alleged. The OP has nowhere challenged this opinion given by Krishna Auto Sales nor has rebutted the same by alleging anywhere that there is no problem in the battery and the fire took place because of the violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act.
8. Even the battery was neither tested by the Surveyor himself nor got the tested by the Surveyor. The OP has alleged that the complainant has not provided them the bills of the repair of the car only the estimate of the repair has been filed. Though, earlier in the complaint, it has been mentioned that there was an estimate for the repair was Rs.2,76,627/-, but during the pendency of the complaint he had produced the bill showing the expenditure for the repair as Rs.1,06,450/-. It is well settled law that the Surveyor must assess the losses and report them to the Insurer and the insured. A licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor must conduct their work with abject competence, objectivity, and professional integrity. They must also adhere to the code of conduct as the IRCAI stipulated in its regulations. The main responsibility of a car insurance surveyor is to investigate and assess the damages and quantify the losses that have been occurred to car. The surveyor should take expert opinion if required in any case. In the present case the surveyors has simply opined that headlight was of higher power and manufacturer fitting tempered by installing extra horn without proving the original fitting in the car.
9. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Civil Appeal No.4071 of 2022, case titled as ‘Gurmel Singh Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.’ that ‘that insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control’. So, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the repudiation of the claim on the ground that there is tempering of the wires without proving the same by way of any expert opinion or by proving the photographs of the tempered wires, is wrong and illegal and the same is hereby set-aside.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to pay the insurance claim of Rs.1,06,450/- to the complainant. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
14.05.2024 Member President
