BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 2^nd DAY OF JUNE 2023

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 3913/2011

V/s

ORDER ON ADMISSION

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER

1.      The appellant/Opposite Party No.4 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.30.08.2011 passed in CC.No.60/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bellary. 

2.      The brief facts of the complaints are hereunder;

It is the case of the complainants that he purchased a Chevrolet AVEO-UVA2 vehicle from the Respondent No.2 which was manufactured by the Respondent No.1.  For the said purchase, the Complainant obtained financial assistance from the Respondent No.5 and he paid Rs. 1,40,402/- to the Respondent No.3  as margin money on 26-10-2010 and the balance amount of Rs.3,14,000/- was financed by the Respondent No.5 as per contract dated: 30-10-2010.  The Respondent No.3 issued delivery note on 04-11-2010 mentioning the chassis No.MA6TF4824HOH0 24713 and the engine No.B1251335039KC2 which is also mentioned in the contract entered with the Respondent No.5.  The Respondent No.3 issued sale certificate dated 08-11-2010.  The said vehicle was insured with the Respondent No.4 on 03-11-2010 at 10:45 a.m. vide Policy No. 141270231001481.  Towards extra fittings the Complainant paid Rs. 7,135/- to the Respondent No.3 and took delivery of the vehicle.     The Respondent No.3 issued Temporary Registration Certificate dated: 18-01-2011 as KA-25/TQ-4446. On 24-01-2011 the Complainant had been to Sringeri with his family members in the new vehicle.  While returning from there to Bellary on 26.01.2011 at Mavinkatte village at about 1.00 p.m. the fire broke out from the back side of the vehicle.  Immediately the Complainant and his family members came out of the vehicle and the vehicle had completely burnt along with luggage consisting of clothes, cash, gold ornaments which were in the suitcase and the mobile phone also lost in the said incident.  The total loss of moveable is Rs. 6,00,000/-.  Regarding the incident the Complainant gave complaint before Chennageri Police Station and also informed about the incident to the Respondent No.2 to 5.  The Respondent No.3 and 4 inspected the vehicle and thereafter the vehicle was handed over to the Respondent No.3.

3.     The Complainant asked the Respondent No.2 to 4 to deliver a new vehicle and reimburse Rs.6,00,000/- which has been lost in the fire accident.  But they kept quiet till this day.  The Respondent No.5 had collected Rs.30,000/- towards insurance and the Complainant was unaware of the same.  The Complainant got issued notice to the Respondents dated: 01.04.2011 calling upon them to deliver new vehicle with extra fittings, to pay interest @18% p.a. on the margin money of Rs.1,40,402/-, to pay Rs.6,00,000/- towards loss caused due to fire accident with interest @ 18% p.a., to pay Rsz.3,00,000/- towards mental agony, to pay up to date installments to the financier by the Respondent No.2 to 4, the Respondent No.5 to refund Rs.30,000/- with interest, the Respondent No.4 to compensate the loss, as per the Policy and Rs.5,000/- towards notice charges.  The Respondents never responded to the said notice.  Hence, the complaint.

4.     After service of notice, the Respondents appeared through counsel and filed version.  The Respondent No.1 in the version contended that the manufacturing defect being the cause of the alleged fire is virtually impossible, if not totally ruled out.  When the vehicle was examined on May 12, 2011, remains of onions, newspaper and groundnuts had been found in the luggage compartment of the vehicle.  The Complainant, as per his own say had been out on a two – three day trip to a pilgrimage site along with his family and friends.  The Complainant stands to be a farmer.  It appears that either cooking material including cooking fuel was being carried in the luggage compartment or there was the presence of self igniting material and / or highly combustible material in the luggage compartment.  What is clear is that the fire broke out in the luggage compartment and the circumstances point to some mistake or negligence in keeping some material there which led to this fire.  The fact that the fire is not on account of any manufacturing defect and that the same is known to the Complainant is also quite evident from the extremely weak, vague and desultory manner in which the allegation of manufacturing defect have been sought to be made.

        5.     The Respondent No.2 filed the written version and denied all the allegations made by the Complainant.  The Respondent No.2 has never issued the alleged sale letter dated: 18.01.2011.  However, the Complainant has forged and fabricated the second sale certificate for the purpose of the complainant.

        6.     The Respondent No.3 adopted the written version filed by the Respondent No.2 and denied all the allegations made by the Complainant.

        7.     The Respondent No.4 filed the written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable in law and on facts and has to be dismissed in limine.  All the allegations made in the complaint except those expressly admitted are denied.  The Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as he has suppressed the material facts with regard to damage caused to his vehicle and has tampered the documents and created documents, which are suitable to his claim.      The Chevrolet AVEO Car bearing engine No.B12S1335039KC2 and chassis No.MA6TF482 H9H024713 was insured with Company vide Policy No.1412702311001481 valid from 03-11-2010 to 02-11-2011 and the said Policy issued is subject to terms and conditions enumerated therein and also in conformity with the provisions of the M.V. Act, which is binding on both the parties.

        8.     The oral intimation given by the Complainant to the Respondent No. 4, is denied.  The only information given to the Respondent No. 4 was on 09-02-2011 and the Respondent No.4 appointed Mr. E. Karunakara, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Bellary who visited the Respondent No.3 showroom and on verification of the documents, it is found that the Complainant’s vehicle was left in the said showroom on 17-01-2011 with history of fire on 16.01.2011 and hence, the complaint has to be dismissed.

        9.     The Respondent No.5 filed the written version stating that at the outset the complaint is the outcome of misrepresentation and distorted facts and the Complainant has suppressed the true and material facts based on which the present complaint has been lodged.  The averments made in para-3 of the complaint are true and correct to the effect that the Complainant had approached the Respondent No.5 for the finance of the Chevrolet AVEO-UVA2 four wheeler vehicle and the Respondent No.5 had financed to the Complainant for a sum of Rs.3,14,000/- by entering into a loan agreement dated: 30.10.2010.

        10.   The Respondent No.5 are pressing the Complainant for the loan installments due, are true and correct.  The further averments made in the same para to the effect that the Respondent No.5 has collected a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards the insurance amount, are false and incorrect.  The Respondent No.5 is a financier and funded the loan to the Complainant for the purchase of the vehicle and the dues are legally recoverable and the allegation towards the claim against the Respondent No.5 does not hold any water and the complaint is filed only with an intention to pass on the liability to recover the damages against the Respondent No.5 for no cause.  So the claim against the Respondent No.5 is not sustainable.  Hence, the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.

11.    After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to refund Rs.9,20,000/- with interest along with compensation and costs.

12.    Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ Opposite Party No.4 is in appeal.  Heard the arguments of appellant.  Inspite of sufficient opportunities has been granted, the Respondents not argued the matter.

13.    On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, we noticed that the Respondent No.1 had purchased a Chevrolet AVEO-UVA2 vehicle from Respondent No.3 which is manufactured by Respondent No.2 with the financial assistance from Respondent No.5.  It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No.10 paid Rs.1,40,402/- to Respondent No.3 as margin money on 26.10.2010 and the balance amount of Rs.3,14,000/- was finalized by Respondent No.5 as per contract dt.30.10.2010 and the chassis No.MA6TF4824H9H024713 and Engine No.B1251335039KC2.  it is also an admitted fact that the said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.4 on 03.11.2010 at 10.45 a.m. vide policy No.141270231001481 for a period from 03.11.2010 to 02.11.2011. 

14.    The allegation of the Respondent No.1 is that on 24.01.2011 he had been to Sringeri with his family members in the new vehicle and while returning from there to Bellari on 26.01.2011 at Mavinakatte Village at about 1.00 p.m. the fire broke out from the back side of the vehicle.  Immediately he and his family came out from the vehicle and the vehicle had completely burnt along with luggage, cash, gold etc. and he suffered  Rs.6,00,000/-.  Immediately he filed a complaint before Chennageri Police Station and informed to the appellant and also to R-2, 3, & 5.  When he claimed to reimburse the cost of the vehicle, the appellant has not settled the claim.  Per contra, the Respondent No.4 contended that the fire accident was not occurred on 26.1.2011, but, it was occurred on 16.01.2011.  Moreover, the temporary registration number was issued vide KA-25/TM-142 which was followed up to 07.12.2010 only.  Then question of issuing another registration certificate vide No.KA-25/TQ-4446 which was valid from 18.01.2011 to 16.02.2011 does not arise.

15.    Perused the order passed by the District Commission.  We noticed that it is an evident that Ex.P.14 the document of Police Department, fire etc., and Ex.P-13 temporary registration certificate issued by the competent authority shows that the temporary registration was valid for the vehicle of the Respondent No.1 from 18.01.2011 to 16.02.2011 and on the date of fire accident the vehicle was valid registration certificate.  However, the appellant has disputed the same, but, not produced relevant documents to prove his contention.  The purpose of temporary registration is to give you away to drive legally until permanent registration gets.  However, it is valid only for one month. Within this period, the vehicle should be registered permanently.  The insurance of the vehicle was done on the basis of engine number and chassis number of the vehicle and the same was mentioned in the insurance policy.  There was no reference of temporary registration number of the vehicle.  Once the contract entered between consumer and the insurance company on the basis of engine number and chassis number not on the basis of temporary registration or permanent registration, insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay insurance claim.  There is no nexus between the temporary registration and permanent registration of the vehicle and the fire accident of the vehicle.  The contract of insurance is based on utmost good faith which is applicable to both the parties.  We agree that the Respondent No.1 has alleged manufacturing defect in the said vehicle.  However, the District Commission has elaborately discussed on that point and hold that insurance company is liable to compensate to Respondent No.1 for the loss caused to the vehicle due to fire accident by paying IDV of the vehicle which was issued with it and dismissed the complaint against Respondent No.2, 3, & 5.  We also agree with the Order passed by the District Commission as because the insurance company indemnifies the loss by issuing the policy.

16.    In the present case, the vehicle has temporary registration number and fire accident was occurred when the vehicle has temporary registration certificate within a period of insurance policy.  The appellant has relied upon a decision of Apex Court in 2014 ACJ 2421 in the matter between Narinder Singh v/s New India Assurance Co., Ltd., and others in which the vehicle met with an accident after expiry of the temporary registration and was damaged.  However in the present case, the fire accident was occurred that the vehicle has temporary registration.  Hence, the citation produced by the appellant is not applicable to the case in hand.  Moreover, there is no contention in the insurance policy that the permanent registration to the vehicle is must.  Hence, the insurance company/appellant cannot repudiate the claim on flimsy grounds and Respondent No.1 is entitled for the amount assessed by the Surveyor for loss to the vehicle due to fire.  Hence, the Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The Appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant/s.

Forward free copies to both parties.

        Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*