DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 834/2015
D.No._________________ Dated: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
AMIT S/o LATE SH. NARESH KUMAR,
R/o H. No.-222, VILLAGE-AUCHANDI,
DELHI-110039.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
(THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER),
60, OKHLA INDL. AREA,
NEW DELHI-110020.… OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 05.08.2015 Date of decision:20.08.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPunder section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a Second Hand Car i.e. Toyota-Camry-Hybrid bearing Registration No. DL-4C-AE-0512& after the purchase of the said car, the complainant transferred the Registration Certificate in his name. After purchasing the car, the
CC No. 834/2015 Page 1 of 8
agent of OP came to the premises of the complainant and took the photographs and filled the application/documents and insured the said car and the latest insurance policy bearing no. 1315542311033760 for the period from 26.12.2014 to 25.12.2015 and the IDV value of Rs.13,12,200/-. On 01.04.2015 at about 8:30 P.M., when the complainant was returning to his premises met with an accident and the said car was completely burnt and the complainant immediately informed the Police, Fire Brigade and insurance company and in this regard, the police as well as Fire-Brigade gave report. The complainant further alleged that after the mis-happening, the complainant approached OP for the claim of the total loss of the said car and supplied all required documents to OP and approached OP several times but there is no proper response given by OP and due to the act of OP, the complainant had to suffer from mental agony, harassment which cannot be compensated in rupees and OP failed to perform the duty for which OP is duty bound and hence there is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to release the claim for total loss of the said car alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. for delay till its realization as well as compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- forcausing delay, mental
CC No. 834/2015 Page 2 of 8
agony and harassment to the complainant and has also sought Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
3. OP has been contesting the case and filed reply and submitted thatimmediately after receiving intimation of the loss, OP appointed Truth Labs, Delhi as technical experts and accordingly, Truth Labs appointed two members team comprising of Mr. Chetan Kumar, Director and Dr. Gandhi P C Kaza to investigate the matter and to collect the evidences. OP further submitted that purpose of the appointment was as per the Provisions of Insurance Act and with intention to get the exact cause of the fire and loss and during the investigation into the matter by the appointed investigators it was observed that on the site of the accident, there was a big dried patch of some liquid on the lower portion of the left side parapet where the car had reportedly collided and burnt debris alongwith the pieces of glass was found lying/scattered on left side of the road and beyond the left edge of the road. OP further submitted that after collecting all debris, samples of the burnt car was sent to chemical laboratory at Hyderabad for chemical analysis and there is major discrepancies in the statement given by the insured Mr. Amit to the Police and to the investigator appointed by OP as to the Police the insured has stated that a stray animal appeared in front of the car and vehicle met with the accident and he came out of the car from the window of the left side where as to the investigator he has
CC No. 834/2015 Page 3 of 8
stated that a herd of Neel Cows came in front of the vehicle and he came out of the vehicle from the left side door. OP further submitted that the insured has also stated that there was explosion in the car and after that fire became very aggravated and resulted in the total burning of the car, whereas during investigation it is found that the fuel tank was intact and there is no availability of hydrocarbons corresponding to petrol in any of two samples of burnt debris collected from the side of the incident and as such, there is no possibility of spillage of fuel from the fuel tank could have led to such an extensive burning of the said car. OP further submitted that the appointed surveyor also observed that there is a vertical dent at a distance of 2’8” from the right edge of the 4’1” long stell foundation indicating that 2/3rd of the car was on the right side of the point of impact and the remaining 1/3rd of the car was on the left side of the point of impact and in such an eventuality the car should have swirled to the right side of the point of impact due to its momentum at the time of collision and the car should have changed its directionkeeping in view the speed of the car at the time of accident and impact and the car after collision swirled to the left in a parallel position without changing its direction and came to a halt with its front left tyre hanging over the drain as shown in the photograph. OP further alleged that the burnt debris collected from the area near the driver’s seat indicates the presence of several
CC No. 834/2015 Page 4 of 8
organic compounds typically representing the substrate substances found inside the car seats, floor etc. except in sample collected from the rear seat having a combustible fire accelerant that could have been on accident of deliberate pouring of an automotive fuel like motor oil or engine oil so as to stage manage an accidental fire. OP further submitted that on the basis of the expert report and chemical evaluation, OP has taken decision in the claim reported and repudiated the claim vide letter dated 26.06.2015 summarizing all the reasons on account of violation of condition no. 1 and condition no. 8 of the insurance agreement. OP further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant alsoplaced on record copy of insurance policy no. 1315542311033760 for the period from 26.12.2014 to 25.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.13,12,200/- issued by OP, copy of RC, copy of driving license of the complainant, copy of complaint dated 03.04.2015 lodged by the complainant to the Police, P.S. Bawana, Delhi and copy of fire report details dated 29.04.2015 issued by the Department of Delhi Fire Service.
6. In support of his version, the complainant has also filed an affidavit
CC No. 834/2015 Page 5 of 8
in evidence of Sh. Harish Kumar S/o Sh. Tara Chand, R/o H. No. 239, Village-Nangal Thakran, Bawana, Delhi and this independent witness has stated in his affidavit that on the date and time of incident i.e. on 01.04.2015 at about 9:00 P.M. he was driving his bike bearing Registration No. DL-8S-AA-4207 towards Village-Auchandi, Delhi and a car bearing Registration No. DL-4C-AE-0512 was running a few steps ahead of his bike on Kanjhawala-Nangal Thakran Road Delhi and suddenly a herd of Neel Gai (Neel Cows) appeared in front of the car and the car driver namely Sh. Amit Chaudhary lost control of the car and the said car collided with left side wall of small bridge and after collision, the driver Amit Chaudhary suddenly came out of the car and the car caught fire and was totally burnt.
7. On the other hand on behalf of OP Sh. Pramod Kumar Shah, Legal Manager of OP filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the reply of OP. OP also filed copy of surveyor report. OP has also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant and OP. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. OP has not disputed the fact that on the alleged date, time & place of incident, the car of the
CC No. 834/2015 Page 6 of 8
complainant met with an accident. OP has not disputed the existence of insurance policy. OP has taken the defence that the complainant has stage managed an accidental fire to succeed in the claim and relied on the report of surveyor.
9. However, the defence taken by OP cannot be believed in view of affidavit in evidence of Sh. Harish Kumar who is an independent public witness of the complainant. The complainant’s witness Sh. Harish Kumar in his affidavit as already observed above has stated that a herd of animals appeared in front of the car of the complainant as a result of which the complainant who was driving the vehicle lost control and collided with left side wall of small bridge and after the collision, the car caught fire and was totally burnt. There is nothing on record as to on which basis the affidavit in evidence of an independent public witness cannot be believed. The evidence of an independent public witness supports the case of the complainant and surveyor report cannot be believed as a surveyor has inspected the site and the vehicle afterwards and has not given the clear-cut findings and the report of surveyor is based on imaginations. Thus, the defence raised by OP is not maintainable and cannot be believed and OP ought to have cleared the claim of the complainant which OP has failed. Accordingly, we hold OP guilty of deficiency in service.
CC No. 834/2015 Page 7 of 8
10. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.13,12,200/- being the IDV value of the vehicle and the complainant to give relevant Forms to OP.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused.
iii) To pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
11. The above amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 20th day of August, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 834/2015 Page 8 of 8
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
