ORDER

Naveen Puri, President.

The titled complainant, aggrieved at the alleged arbitrary 'repudiation' of his Car Total-Loss Insurance-Claim in a FireIncident by the opposite party insurers, pertaining to the one daytime road-side self-caught fire-incident resulting into total-loss to Vikrant Krishan. Vs. O.I.C. etc. C.C. No.07 of 2022. -2- his insured Scoda Laura Car (for an IDV of Rs.5.60 Lac) Registration Certificate No. CH-01-AB-6100; has filed the present complaint against the OP insurers who had issued the one comprehensive (Ex.C1) policy 233800/31/2022/590. Somehow, the insured Car was damaged to total-loss in an internally-caught engine-fire while on the road on 17.07.2021; the fire-brigade was called to extinguish the fire; the related DDR No.52 (17.07.2021) was lodged; and the OP insurers were duly intimated and the badly burnt/ damaged but insured Car was parked at the road-side workshop namely: M/s Vishkarma Auto Mobiles at Pathankot, at the very instance of the OP1 insurers. The OP Appointed Spot Surveyor had visited the fire-incident site on the same day and had assured the complainant of an early claim-settlement.

2. The complainant had been in regular follow-up contact with the OP insurers and had supplied them all the requisitioned documents/papers but somehow the OP Insurers had repudiated his claim on 29.11.2021 on false n flimsy considerations that the fire has been a self-managed show as the video-filming as well as the forensic-reports indicated/showed that the fire-flames were arising over the Car's outer-body parts and not coming from the internals of the car. The complainant rebutted all these charges through his e-mail replies but that could not satisfy the OP insurers who stood Vikrant Krishan. Vs. O.I.C. etc. C.C. No.07 of 2022. -3- firmly by their repudiation and hence prompted the present complaint seeking directives to the OP to settle the impugned claim for the IDV of Rs.5.60 Lac with interest @ 24% PA w e from the fire-incident till realization besides Rs.200,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation also any other relief to which she be found entitled by the honorable commission. Lastly, the complainant in order to support his complaint has also filed his affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) along with other papers exhibited as: Ex.C1 to Ex.C9; Rejoinder to the OP Reply; Affidavit Ex.CW2/A Kishan Chand as additional evidence for perusal/consideration during the course of proceedings.

3. The titled opposite party insurers (the OP1 & the OP2) appeared in compliance to the commission’s summons/notice through their joint counsel and filed the written reply stating therein preliminary as well as other objections (on merits) as: The present complaint is not maintainable and as such is liable to be dismissed as the OP insurers upon receipt of the intimation had deputed Vinay Kumar Nayyar Surveyor & Loss Assessor who took photographs of the damaged vehicle and submitted his report on 28.07.2021. Thereafter, the OP deputed another Surveyor Rajeev Sharma who assessed the Net Loss @ Rs.5,48,000/- and filed his report on 13.09.2021. However, the OP Vikrant Krishan. Vs. O.I.C. etc. C.C. No.07 of 2022. -4- insurers did not take these two surveyors' reports as final/binding alleging that the complainant had not come forward with clean hands and so re-deputed Dr Jassy Anand Forensic Expert and M/s S A Investigating & Consulting Agency for re-invesitgations etc., and both the related reports were received on 16.08.2021 and 31.08.2021, respectively. The reports revealed that 'fire' was not due to short-circuiting but was self-ignited through petroleum products.

4. Further, the OP insurers have firmly contested that the insurance-claim, in question, was repudiated with due application of mind and has been in right order as was conveyed to the complainant on 09.12.2021. On merits, the OP Insurers have denied the contents of the complaint addressing these as matter of record and/or being incorrect and have relied upon the forensic report by highlighting/quoting some of its salient features like fire had spread out from all sides rather than flaming out of its one point of origin etc in reaching the impugned 'repudiation' and there's have been no deficiency in service at any stage, on the their part. Lastly, the OP insurers have sought dismissal of the complaint and have put forth the herein listed documentary evidence in support of their defense. Vikrant Krishan. Vs. O.I.C. etc. C.C. No.07 of 2022. -5-

The listed documents are as:

1. Ex.OP1/A – Affidavit of Sh. Harbans Lal Sr. Divisional Manager;

2. Ex.OP2/A – Affidavit of Sh. Sarv Daman Bhalla of M/s S A Investigating Agency;

3. Ex.OP3/A – Affidavit of Sh. Rajeev Sharma Surveyor & Loss Assessor;

4. Ex.OP1 – Repudiation Letter dated 09.12.2021;

5. Ex.OP2 – OP Query Letter dated 29.11.2021;

6. Ex.OP3 – Loss Assessment Report Rs.5.48 Lac dated 13.09.2021;

7. Ex.OP4 – Police Daily Diary Report No 52 (17.07.2021);

8. ExOP5 – OIC Ins. Cert. Cum Policy IDV Rs 5.60Lac (Premium Paid Rs.15,683/-);

9. Ex.OP6 – Motor (Spot) Survey Report (28.07.2021) by Vinay Kr Nayyar Surveyor;

10. Ex.OP7 – Investigation Report (31.08.2021) by S A Investigating & Consulting Agency;

11. Ex.OP8 - Forensic Report (16.08.2021) by Dr. Jassy Anand;

12. Ex.OP9 to Ex.18 – Photographs of the burnt/damaged Car;

13. Ex.OP19 – Total-Loss Certificate by S A Investigating & Consulting Agency;

14. Ex.OP20 – Statement of Eye-Witnesses by S A Investigating & Consulting Agency;

15. Ex.OP4/A – Affidavit by Dr Jassy Anand Forensic Expert; (As additional evidence).

16. Written Arguments by the learned advocate for the OP insurers. 

5. We have examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to statutorily interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the Vikrant Krishan. Vs. O.I.C. etc. C.C. No.07 of 2022. -6- learned counsels for their respective litigants. We find that the present dispute has arisen on account of the impugned ‘repudiation' of the car's insurance-claim by the OP insurers on account of the allegation of 'self-induced' fire to damage the insured Car to totalLoss.

6. We observe that the OP insurers have not produced any cogent cum admissible evidence from an independent investigator to examine the root cause of the car-fire as to its genuineness etc. No prior notice/intimation was sounded to the insured for the ante as well as post forensic sample-taking/examination and no opportunity was awarded to the complainant to have a second forensic opinion as well as loss-assessment through an independent expert of mutual choice and consent. The OP insurers have got all these tests cum examinations in an apparent secretive confidence with no respects to transparency the cardinal aspect to the modified consumer laws. Further, the OP insurers have kept its findings restricted to repudiation of the insurance-claim and did not award the necessary furtherance to the criminal offense of self-induced fire for pocketing unlawful gains by the complainant and that again confines the OP into the arena of malafide.

7. We further find that the OP insurers own appointed Loss Assessor has assessed the fire-caused car-damage @ Rs.5.48 Lac Vikrant Krishan. Vs. O.I.C. etc. C.C. No.07 of 2022. -7- against the IDV of Rs.5.60 Lac and has thus justified the claim settlement @ total-loss and that stands implied as had accepted by them.

8. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the herein OP insurers to pay Rs.5.60 Lac IDV of the insured Car to the complainant as being the amount of the impugned claim along with interest @ 6% PA w e from the date of the complaint besides Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation within 45 days of the receipt of the certified copy of these orders otherwise the aggregated awarded amount shall attract an additional interest @ 3% PA from the date of the orders till paid in full.

9. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

        ANNOUNCED:                                                                                                                                     (Naveen Puri) President.                                                                                                                                                                                       (R.S.Sukhija) Member                         AUG. 25, 2022. YP.