Haryana

StateCommission

A/512/2016

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARENDER - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

19 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.           512 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       06.06.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         19.09.2016

 

The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, City Centre, Opp. I.B. College, Panipat.

                             Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Narender son of Mange Ram, resident of Village Bursham, Tehsil and District Panipat at present Ward No.9, Basti Pajran, Patiala (Punjab).

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Hari Kishan son of Suraj Bhan c/o Star Insurance Company Limited, Atlas Road, Sonepat.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                         

 

Present:              Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant

                             Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate for the respondent No.1- complainant

                             (Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated 11^th July, 2016)

           

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1 is in appeal against the order dated March 09^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Narender-complainant was allowed.  The Insurance Company was directed to make the payment of Rs.7,50,000/- (Insured Declared Value of car) to the complainant. 

2.      The complainant got his car Skoda Rapid Ambition 1.6 TDI CR make insured with the Insurance Company for the period January 07^th, 2014 to January 06^th, 2015 vide insurance policy Annexure A-1.  The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.7,50,000/-. On November 25^th, 2014, the car caught fire. The complainant lodged Daily Diary Report No.23 dated November 25^th, 2014. The complainant submitted his claim before the Insurance Company.  The claim was not settled. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The Insurance Company, in its written version pleaded that as per Forensic Investigation, there was presence of wide range of inflammable organic compounds inside the car and the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 

4.      While assailing the order of the District Forum, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that the car caught fire due to human intervention and that some wide range inflammable Organic Compound was being carried in the car. In support, reliance was placed upon the report of Truth Labs (Annexure A-3).

5.      The contention raised is not tenable. Indisputably, the car was burnt on November 25^th, 2014 and DDR was lodged on the same day. Truth Labs report (Exhibit A-3) finds mention of the DDR under heading “II Documentary Evidence Collected” the relevant part of which reads as under:-

“1.     Photocopy of DDE No.23 dated November 23^rd, 2014 of Police Post Rajlu Garhi, Sonepat in respect of the fire incident.  (Enclosed as Annexure –I) According to the said entry, Mr. Jaideep son of Mr. Dayanand resident of Village Pipli Khera, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat, Haryana, who was driving the vehicle at the time of fire incident, stated to the police that he owns a fabricating unit M/s Shivalik Enterprises in Barhi Industrial Area, Sonepat.  He further stated that he had borrowed the car from his relative, Mr. Narinder Singh at Panipat at about 16.00 hours that day and had travelled by the said car to Sonepat for his personal work.  On return, while he was travelling from Sonepat City to Industrial Area, Barhi, District Sonepat, he noticed smoke emanating from the bonnet of the car, at about 19:15 hours on Badshahi Road, Near Village Rajlu Garhi, Sonepat, Haryana.  By the time he stopped the car, there were fire flames under the bonnet.  He informed the police control room on telephone No.100 and the fire brigade about the fire incident.  He also stated that the car caught fire due to short circuit in the engine of the car.

 2.     Photocopy of Fire Report No.163 dated 25^th November, 2014 of Fire Station, Ganaur alongwith Receipt No.64 of Book No.307 dated 27^th November, 2014 issued by Municipal Committee, Ganaur for fire charges of Rs.300/- (Enclosed as Annexure A-II).  According to these documents, the fire brigade left the fire station at 19:19 hours and returned back at 20:10 hours (mentioned as 20:20 hours in the receipt) after dousing the fire.”

6.      In the later part of the report (Annexure A-3) under the heading “Results of chemical analysis” it is mentioned as here under:-

“GC-MS analysis of the four samples of burnt debris collected from different area of the burnt vehicle revealed the presence of typical hydrocarbons usually found in the ignitable fire accelerants such as Tridecane, 1-Heptadecene, 1-Docosene etc besides other hydrocarbons indicating that fire could have been initiated due to deliberate attempt to set fire using these ingredients.  The presence of other major ingredients like Dibutyl Phthalate, Diethyl Phthalate etc could have been on account of pyrolysis and combustion of upholstery plastic materials used in the interiors that could have got burnt in the process of burning.”

 

7.      Though in the conclusion it was mentioned that the car caught fire “on account of deliberate setting of fire to the stationary vehicle by pouring ignitable fire accelerants all over the body and in the vehicle cabin in an attempt to stage manage the accident cum fire deliberately by someone”, the same cannot be accepted as the report itself indicates that the presence of aromatic hydrocarbons and other organic compound found, are used in the engine.  For ready reference, para 8 at page 4 of the report (Annexure A-3) reads as under:-

“8.     The engine portion of the vehicle was found to have completely burnt including the gear box, master cylinder, brake system and inter cooler pipes.  Battery, radiator, air filter and condenser were found to be missing.”

8.      Indisputably, the occurrence had taken place on November 25^th, 2014 while the Investigator of the Insurance Company visited the site on December 20^th, 2014, that is, after a period of twenty five days and submitted his report on January 21^st, 2015. Thus, the Insurance Company itself is responsible for enabling the third party intervention during this period for tampering with the property. Moreover, as per report also, the material alleged to have been found in the car was used as a fuel and chances of same having spread after the fire from the petrol/diesel tank also cannot be ruled out.

9.      Besides, even the complainant was not to gain by setting the car on fire as undisputedly the price of the new car of same model ranges between Rs.9.00 to Rs.12.00 lacs, while the car was insured only for Rs.7,50,000/-. So, the inference of the Truth Labs is inconsistent to the documents collected by them. In view of this, the order under appeal requires no interference.

10.    For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.        

 

 

Announced 19.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President