CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.119/2011
SMT. KIRAN SHARMA
W/O SHRI J.P.N. PALIA
R/O 1/332, 2ND FLOOR,
SECTOR-1, VAISHALI,
GHAZIABAD, U.P.
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PLOT NO.60, 2ND FLOOR,
OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 01.07.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that she is owner of car No.DL 2C AH 7013, Ford Ikon and got the same insured with OP for period from 29.5.2009 to 28.5.2010 for IDV of Rs.6,44,000/-.
It is stated that on 08.4.2010 complainant was coming from her office and was going towards her house. At about 4.45 P.M. when the car reached opposite Radisson hotel, a peculiar sound stated coming from the engine of the car and the complainant asked the driver Sh. Ashok Kumar who at that time was sitting in the car to see what has happened in the engine and when he opened the bonnet of the car, at the same time a motorcyclist shouted that car has caught fire and complainant came out of the car and immediately informed the police by dialing no.100. Fire Brigade arrived at the spot and extinguished the fire and by that time the car was completely burnt. At the time of incident the complainant was driving the car and driver Ashok Kumar sitting on the rear seat. It is further stated that complainant informed the OP about the incident and the OP registered the claim of complainant and deputed an investigator. Complainant provided all the information required by the investigator and on the advice of investigator sold the remains of the car on 12.6.2010 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the said fact was informed to OP. The complainant also surrendered registration certificate of the car to registering authority.
It is further stated that on 13.8.2010 OP demanded from complainant the driving license of driver Ashok Kumar, NOC from Financier, PAN card, address proof and cancelled cheque for NEFT. The complainant complied with the requirement of the OP except the driving licence of Sh. Ashok Kumar. It was brought o the notice of OP that Sh. Ashok Kumar is no more available and has left the service of the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant was driving the car and not the driver Sh. Ashok Kumar and moreover when car got fire it was in stationary position and demand of driving licence of anyone is irrelevant and has no bearing with the incident.
Complainant has prayed that OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,33,000/- towards price of car and Rs. 1 lakh for mental harassment.
Claim is resisted by OP on the ground that complainant has mentioned to the police as well as to the investigator that at the time of incident, Sh. Ashok Kumar driver was driving the car. The claim was not processed as the complainant has not produced driving licence of the driver. OP is ready to pay amount to the complainant but for non availability of the driving licence of Sh. Ashok Kumar claim could not be paid.
We have heard counsel for OP and gone through the written submissions of the parties. The only ground for repudiation of claim was non submission of driving licence of driver Sh. Ashok Kumar. In para 2 of the complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that at the relevant time she was driving car and driver was sitting on the rear seat.
OP in reply stated that para 1-3 only are admitted to the extent that vehicle in question was insured with OP, rest of the contents is a matter of record. It is nowhere stated in the reply that at the relevant time complainant was not driving the vehicle rather driver, Sh. Ashok Kumar was driving the vehicle. In the preliminary objections it is stated by OP that it is evident from the DD entry that vehicle was driven by driver Sh. Ashok Kumar.
We have gone through the DD. It is nowhere mentioned in the DD that at the relevant time vehicle was driven by driver, Sh. Ashok Kumar. It is stated in the DD that when police reached the spot they met driver Sh. Ashok Kumar and the complainant. It does not mean that the driver was driving the vehicle. It is not un-common that at time owner himself wishes to drive the vehicle and ask the driver to occupy the rear seat. complainant has filed affidavit by way of evidence stating that she was driving the car in question. On behalf of OP affidavit has been filed by way one Sh. Satyan Kumar towards evidence stating that at the relevant time Sh. Ashok Kumar was driving the car. We failed to understand on what basis investigator has come to conclusion that at the relevant time Sh. Ashok Kumar was driving the car. He has not recorded the statement of any witness in this regard. The insured told the investigator that she was driving the car not the driver. The onus was on the insurance company to prove that driver was driving the car but failed to do so.
In para 5 it is stated that when the car got fire it was in a stationary position and the demand of driving licence is irrelevant and has no bearing for settling the claim by the OP.
Complaint has stated that at the relevant time the car was stationary. In reply to para 5, it is nowhere stated that the car was not in stationary position when it caught fire. Complainant has specifically stated that she was driving the car at the time of incident and when she heard noise coming from the bonnet of the car then asked the driver to check the car and while doing so a motorcyclist informed that the car has caught fire meaning that at the time of incident the car was in stationary position. It does not matter who was driving the car at the relevant time. Here it is useful to refer to case of Kuldeep Singh Vs National Insurance Corporation Ltd. II(2013) CPJ(87) (NC) in that case the vehicle was hit when it was stationary it was held that it does not matter that the driver was not having the valid driving license. Assuming for the sake of argument that Sh. Ashok Kumar was driving the car, there is no relation between the driving of the car and the incidence of fire. The onus was on the insurance company to prove that the fire was caused due to the negligent driving. It is apparent from the report of the investigator that complainant took the matter with the manufacturer of the car regarding the cause of fire but manufacturer Maruti Udyog Ltd. in their letter dated 18.6.2010 replied that it is not possible to investigate on cause of fire in the vehicle and requested insured to report the case to the insurance company for further claim settlement. The investigator has further stated that the vehicle was a petrol vehicle meaning thereby that the vehicle was being run on petrol and not on any other fuel. Insurance company has failed to prove any relationship between the diving of the car and fire. The driving has nothing to do with the fire as cause of fire was not known. Here it is relevant to refer to case of National Insurance Company Vs Jaswant Singh 1(2013) CPJ(389) (NC) in that case the truck had no permit to ply in Punjab and had permit to ply in Haryana truck destroyed in the fire in Punjab claimed rejected by insurance company on the ground for violation of terms of policy. Held that fire has nothing to do with the violation of terms. 75% of the claim allowed.
It is not disputed that the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.6,44,000/-/ The remains of the car were sold as the scrap by the complainant for a sum of Rs.10,000/-.
The complainant is entitled to the balance amount Rs.6,34,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from date of filing of the complainant and also entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ) (A.S YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
