The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 433/2018 dated 10.05.2018.

2.      In the Complaint Case, it was stated that Respondent/Complainant was registered owner of Vehicle Toyota Etios, bearing registration No. HR-743-9663. Respondent got his vehicle insured with Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, for a period of 1year i.e. from 24.04.2016 to 23.04.2017 having total Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs. 6,00,979/-. Car of the Respondent was taken by his friend Sarvan Kumar for his personal use on 21.01.2017.  Sarvan Kumar parked the said vehicle in his farm house. On 23.01.2017, the vehicle was badly damaged due to fire accident. Thereafter, Sarvan Kumar immediately informed the Respondent about burning of the said vehicle and information of the same was given to the Police at Police Station Camp Palwal. The Petitioner was also informed about the said incident immediately. The Respondent also submitted the insurance claim but the same was repudiated by the Petitioner wrongfully, vide letter dated 13.10.2017. Hence, the Complaint was filed by the Respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner.

3.      The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner in the District Forum stating that Respondent has no cause of action to file the Complaint case as he had suppressed material facts. An independent forensic investigation done by Truth Lab Forensic Services also known as Truth Foundation, reported that fire occurred in the vehicle while it was parked in the fields of Sarvan Kumar on 23.01.2017 at about 11: a.m. According to the report, fire was not on account of electrical short circuit in the engine compartment or on account of mechanical or combustion failure in the engine or failure of ignition mechanism or due to accidental collision with any other vehicle or stationary objects, but was due to usage of extraneous flammable and combustible materials in the car cabin and boot space.

4.      The District Forum, vide order dated 06.03.2018, allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay the Respondent  damage of Rs.5,74,979/-, as assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor of the Insurance Company itself, Compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.51,00/- towards Litigation Expenses on the ground that there was no clue from the report of the Surveyor and forensic report regarding any ashes or any such flammable substance which could have resulted in fire.

5.      Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission against the Respondent. The State Commission, vide order dated 10.05.2018, dismissed the Appeal in limine by confirming the order passed by the District Forum. 

6.      Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, Petitioner preferred the present Revision Petition on the ground that the State Commission as well as District Forum had erred in ignoring the settled principles of law that in cases of breach of policy conditions, no compensation can be awarded.

7.      Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He reiterated the arguments as already stated above.

8.      The Toyota Etios car bearing registration no. HR-73-9663 was duly insured by the Petitioner for a period of one year.  The Respondent’s friend Sarvan Kumar took the vehicle for his personal work and when it was parked in his farm house, the vehicle caught fire and got badly damaged.  Police and Fire were immediately informed of the same.  The Petitioners engaged Truth Lab Forensic Services as investigator, could not bring out the actual cause of the fire accident.  Having not been able to pin-point the cause of fire, Mr. A.K. Srivastava in his report gave a finding that the Complainant was directly or indirectly responsible for the fire.  This is merely an assumption which cannot be the basis of denial of a claim under the insurance policy.  No convincing evidence has been produced that the vehicle caught fire due to foul play on the part of the Respondent or his friend.  We do not see any reason why the owner of the car or friend would have deliberately set the car on fire and claim the insurance amount.  In these circumstances, there is absolutely no reason to differ with the findings of the District Forum as well as the State Commission. 

9.      On perusal of record, we find that the District Forum had given a clear observation in their order after going through the Surveyor and Forensic Reports.  Both the reports did not give any clue or symptom or sign of ashes or any flammable article or substance in the said vehicle, which could have resulted in fire. The State Commission has also clearly held that it was the duty of the Petitioner, more particularly the Truth Foundation, engaged by the Insurance Company to give clear findings regarding cause of the said fire incident. Thus, on the basis of assumptions it cannot be presumed that the Respondent was directly or indirectly responsible for the said fire incident.

10.    Having heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and after carefully going through the record, we are convinced that the         both the District Forum as well as State Commission have given a clear, just and fair order by considering all the available evidence on record.

11.    In view of the same, the present Revision Petition is dismissed and the orders passed by both the District Forum as well the State Commission are confirmed.