Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 404
Instituted on : 05.09.2018.
Decided on :02.01.2024.
Davender Singh age 31 years, s/o Azad Singh R/o Village-Jassia, Teh. &Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited Corporate Office 4th& 5th Floor, IFFCO TOWER, Plot No.3, Sector-29, Gurugram(Haryana) through its General Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.NakulAhlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Anurag Malik, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of Ford Endeavour XLT Car bearing registration no.HR-12R-7840 which was insured with respondent company vide policy no.96737445 for IDV of Rs.1300000/- valid from 05.07.2016 to 24.02.2017. It is further submitted that on 07.02.2017 when the complainant was coming from Karnal by driving the alleged vehicle and when the car reached at PanipatRohtak Bye-pass Budsham, then all of a sudden the car caught fire due to short circuit. The complainant hardly saved himself. The complainant duly informed the police as well as fire brigade and a report no.624 dated 07.02.2017 was got entered by the fire station office Panipat and report vide DD No.28 was entered at P.S.Israna on 10.02.2017. The complainant duly informed the officials of the opposite party on time and the vehicle of the complainant was got surveyed by the surveyor of the respondent company and he declared the vehicle as total loss. After that complainant applied for the claim and submitted all the documents as desired by respondent vide claim no.36946468.Complainant requested the opposite party to disburse the claim amount and also served a legal notice dated 22.01.2018 but the opposite party has flatly refused to pay the claim amount to the complainant.Opposite party vide its letter dated 07.05.2018 had illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1300000/- alongwith interest, compensation of Rs.100000/- for causing mental tension & harassment and also to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite partyfiled its written reply and has submitted that on receipt of intimation of loss, the matter was entrusted to the surveyor Mr. ManojPuri, who mentioned in his report that proximate cause of fire appraised by the insured is due to short circuit but the same was not found in order and the matter was advised for investigation and forensic verification. However, he has assessed the loss on the market value of similar make model vehicle on constructive total loss-Net of Salvage for Rs.818000/-. Matter was entrusted to forensic expert/investigator,Truth labs to investigate the reasons of fire occasioned in the insured vehicle. The said forensic investigation agency carried out forensic investigation and submitted report no.THL/IIC/017/17 dated 29.05.2017 to the answering respondent. The loss reported by the complainant was not accidental in nature but was caused by deliberately putting the vehicle on fire by the insured himself. Respondent insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim within the terms and condition of the insurance policy. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed his evidence on dated 27.01.2020. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW1/C, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed his evidence on dated 14.01.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by the opposite party as well as the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. After the accident, complainant filed the present case but the same has been repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R1 on the ground that :“The fire was not on account of self ignition while driving, the fire was on account of deliberate setting of fire to the car by using extraneous ignitable fire accelerates (inflammable material) derived from Kerosene, Petrol as seen from the GC-MS analysis report on burnt debris collected from the burnt vehicle. Taking into consideration the means, motive and opportunity to cause such a deliberate stage managed fire, the possibility of the owner being directly or indirectly responsible for its ignition, initiation and propagation cannot be ruled out”. In this regard it is observed that the incident had taken place on 07.02.2017 whereas as per the lab report Ex.R2, the inspection of the burnt car and the site of incident was carried out on 22.02.2017 i.e. after more than 14 days and during this period the vehicle might have turned to ashes. It is also observed that as per affidavit Ex.RW1/C, loss was assessed on net of salvage basis. Moreover, on the last page of survey report Ex.R3, after assessment of loss, he has mentioned that the forensic report has been received from the office of insurance company and as per the inspection report, the fire in the vehicle was not due to any short circuiting and was deliberately set fire by insured using kerosene, petrol. But prior to receiving the alleged report, hefound no irregularity and already came to the conclusion that company is liable to pay the total loss on net of salvage basis.Moreover as per the affidavit Ex.RW1/A it is submitted that :Taking into consideration the means, motive and opportunity to cause such a deliberate stage managed fire, the possibility of the owner being directly or indirectly responsible for its ignition, initiation and propagation cannot be ruled out”. But those means and motives and other causes have not been described either by the Truth Labs or by the surveyor/investigator i.e. Sh. ManojPuri in their reports. Meaning thereby the alleged motives and means are merely an allegations which have not been proved by the respondent officials in any manner. It is also observed that the ashes might have contained hydrocarbons becauseResidual petroleum hydrocarbons, also commonly known as fossil fuels, originate from naturally occurring geological sources such as crude oil, bitumen and coal.MoreoverPetroleum Hydrocarbons are a large class of chemicals made up of carbon and hydrogen that are the primary compounds found in common fuels such as kerosene, gasoline, diesel, motor oil, and different jet fuels, including JP-5. Hence the detection of Hydrocarbons in debris does not mean that the probable cause of fire was on account of deliberate setting of fire to the car by using extraneous ignitable fire accelerants derived from kerosene, petrol etc.. We have also placed reliance upon order dated 17 January 2014 of Hon’ble National commission, New Delhi cited by ld. counsel for the complainant in case titled as ICICI Lombard Motors Ins. &Anr. Vs. Nikhil Syal, as per which Hon’ble National commission has held that : “Although in the forensic report, it was mentioned that the residues of petroleum hydrocarbon were detected in the contents of the exhibit, but that did not prove that the car was burnt deliberately by the complainant by sprinkling petroleum products, on the same”. The alleged law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. As such the repudiation of claim on this ground is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is entitled for the claim as per policy. As per policy Ex.R4the IDV of the vehicle as per policy is Rs.1300000/-. As such complainant is entitled for the IDV amount of vehicle after deducting the salvage value Rs.30000/- and Rs.2000/- as compulsory excess clause(as mentioned in the survey report Ex.R3) i.e.Rs.1268000/-
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1268000/-(Rupees twelve lac sixty eight thousand only)alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.09.2018 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to move an application to the Registration Authority for cancellation of RC within 15 days.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
02.01.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
TriptiPannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member
