Haryana

Ambala

CC/103/2015

Satish Kumar Nara - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.D. Bajaj Alianz - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok gupta

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 103 of 2015.

                                                          Date of Institution         : 16.04.2015.

                                                          Date of decision   : 15.09.2017

Satish Kumar Nara son of Dharam Singh resident of Gulmohar City, Derrabassi.

……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.M.D.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Regd. Office, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada-Pune.

2.Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO No.14, 4^th Floor, Sector 5 Panchkula.

3.Manager, Modern Automobiles, Ambala-Chandigarh, G.T. Road, Ambala City.

….…. Opposite parties.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                

Present:       Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Vig, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

                   Sh.S.R.Bansal, counsel for OP No.3.

ORDER:

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner of Maruti Swift Car (VDI) bearing registration No.HR01-AD-5030 duly purchased form OP No.3. He got the same insured with OP Nos. 1 & 2 vide policy No.G-15-1201-1801-00003488 dated 07.12.2014. After purchasing of the car, the complainant kept on servicing the vehicle at regular intervals from OP No.3 and lastly he got serviced the same from OP No.3 in the month of December, 2014. On 03.01.2015 at about 6.15 P.M. when the complainant was going from Panchkula to his residence then the car caught fire near his house. He immediately informed the fire station office, Derabassi which reached at the spot after 10-15 minutes and extinguished the fire but in the meantime the car burnt almost.  The complainant also intimated about this to the insurance company immediately and sent the car by towing to the OP No.3 on 06.01.2015.  The Op No.3 after inspection declared the same as a total loss and estimated the cost of Rs.10 lacs despite the fact that the price of the new brand is in between 6 to 7 lacs. Thereafter the complainant submitted the insurance claim with the OP Nos.1 & 2/ insurance company besides submitting all the requisite documents. The service manager of OP No.3 has reported that fire was not owing to any manufacturing defect but did not submit the cause of fire. In the month of March, 2015 the complainant felt astonished on receiving of repudiation letter by OP Nos. 2 & 3 on the ground that there was high watt head light tube and attributed the loss to the vehicle to an electrical breakdown or failure. The complainant had not fitted any high watt head light tubes and no-where in the report it has been mentioned that the vehicle caught fire due to high watt head light tube. The OP No.3 has been concealing the cause of fire which shows that it has left some lacuna or deficiency at the time of service; therefore, it is abstaining from submitting the cause of fire. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.

2.                On notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing their separate replies. OP Nos.1 & 2 in their reply have submitted that the Maruti Swift VDI Car bearing registration No.HR-01-AD-5030 was insured with them for the period from 08.12.2014 to 07.12.2015 and mere insurance of the vehicle is not a guarantee that claim would be sanctioned. The complainant has not produce the letter dated 28.03.2015 i.e. Technical report from manufacturer on root cause of fire. Vide letters dated 09.02.2015, 16.02.2015, 21.03.2015 & 28.03.2015 the complainant has been asked to submit the documents but he did not do so, therefore, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 04.04.2015 and as per Section 1, 2 (a) i.e. 2 the company is not liable to make any payment in respect of consequential loss depreciation wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown failures or breakages.  In the report dated 24.02.2015 prepared by the investigator it has been mentioned that As per Maruti Workshop Employee with reference to his company report insured vehicle was fitted with non-genuine head light tubes of high power which might be cause of fire. Without production of documents, the claim cannot be decided and the loss occurred does not fall under the policy and the cause of fire is purely on account of manufacturing defect, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the same. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                 OP No.3 in its reply has submitted that as per inspection report of the surveyor it was found that the vehicle was fitted with high watt head light tube causing fire, therefore, the claim is not tenable s the loss the vehicle is consequential in nature and due to electrical break down which is not covered under the purpose of the policy as mentioned and intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 21.03.2015. The vehicle of the complainant was out of warranty being 2011 model and there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and even the manufacturer has not been impleaded in the present case.  The OP No.3 is entitled for the parking charges since 03.01.2015. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OP Nos.1 & 2 have tendered affidavits Annexure RX and Annexure RY and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R17. OP No.3 in his evidence filed affidavit of Pawan Kumar as Annexure R-3/1.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

5.                          There is no dispute that the vehicle in question was insured with OP Nos. 1 & 2 having validity from 08.12.2014 to 07.12.2015 and the IDV of the vehicle was calculated as Rs.3,69,474 (Annexure C1/Annexure R17) and the same caught fire during the subsistence of the policy on 03.01.2015 during the travelling from Panchkula to the house of the complainant. Fire Brigade was called and it extinguished the fire and the vehicle was brought to the OP No.3 on 06.01.2015. The vehicle was declared as total loss. Regarding fire DDR Annexure R3 was also registered on the same day. The claim lodged by the complainant to the OP Nos.1 & 2 was repudiated vide Annexure C2 on the ground that  consequential loss depreciation wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown failures or breakages is not covered.

6.                          The main ground of the OPs for repudiation of the claim is that as per surveyor report the vehicle was fitted with non-genuine head light tube of higher power which might be the cause of fire. We have gone through the record and as per the owner manual Annexure R16 of the Swift Maruti Suzuki the Light Wattage bulb  headlight 12V 60/55 W H4   should be used in the car in question  but as per surveyor report it was found that the complainant was using non-genuine head light tube of higher power   and this fact is also evident from photographs Annexure R6 to Annexure R8. Annexure R8 clearly shows that the complainant was using the bulb having wattage as 130/100 Watt bulb against the manual Annexure R16. It is also mentioned in the heading of Caution at Sr. No13 that Do not use non-genuine accessories in your vehicle and Sr. No.14 that Do not fit accessories from unauthorized workshops/sources. The above said surveyor report and photographs have not been rebutted by the complainant by placing any another documents to show that the same were not genuine one and specifically the photographs do not relate to his car.  The complainant is not entitled for any claim from insurance company as per Section 2 (a) of the policy which says that   consequential loss depreciation wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown failures or breakages.  Since the surveyor was the best person to know the cause of fire and in his report he had specifically mentioned that the vehicle caught fire by suing the bulb of higher Watt than the prescribed Watt. The plea of the complainant that the surveyor had not specify by attaching any document to show that the vehicle caught fire due to using of higher watt bulb but this plea is not sustainable because it was open for the complainant to get the same examined through expert or any other person specialized in the said field to know the cause of fire. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there was delay in appointment of surveyor and even the survey report has not been supplied to the complainant, therefore it is a breach of IRDA Regulation by the Ops and relied upon case   laws titled as Meena Devi Jain Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited 2014 (4) CLT 571 & M/s Prem Processor Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2014 (4) CLT 575.   This plea raised by the counsel for the complainant is not tenable because it has been clearly established on the case file that the complainant was duly intimated about the repudiation of the claim as well as the cause of fire, therefore, the complainant cannot shift the burden of his own wrongs to the shoulders of other party, therefore, the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the case in hand and are being distinguished. It is settled principal of law that the complainant has to prove his case by standing on his own legs without taking the benefits of weaknesses of other party but the complainant has failed to prove the same without leading any cogent evidence.

7.                Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 15.09.2017                                     (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member