Haryana

Sonipat

CC/311/2015

Amit Kumar S/o Dharampal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co. ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

D.S. Chauhan

11 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.311 of 2015                                             Instituted on:28.08.2015                                             Date of order:14.12.2015

 

Amit Kumar son of Dharam Pal r/o village Gangoli, tehsil Safidon, distt. Jind at present VPO Ghewra, Kanjhawala, Delhi.

     …….Complainant

                          VERSUS

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Regd. Office 19, Reliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001, service through its Divn./Branch Manager, Model Town, Delhi road, Rohtak.

     ……..Respondent.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Sh. DS Chauhan Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondent.

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, President.

           Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

           D.V. Rathi, Member.

O R D E R

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of vehicle no.DL-2F-EM-0333 which was insured with the respondent for the period 28.2.2015 to 27.2.2016.  The complainant lodged DDR in police post Butana, distt. Sonepat on 8.4.2015 regarding catch of fire in the car at its own due to electric fault.   The complainant immediately intimated regarding this accident to the respondent.  The complainant has submitted all the requisite documents with the respondent.  But till date, the respondent did not pay the amount of the claim and has repudiated his claim vide letter dated 4.7.2013.  The complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondent in its reply has submitted that the fire in the car was not caused by short circuit or due to spillage of fuel. During the investigation made by the respondent and as per Forensic Investigation Report, it was observed that there was presence of wide range of inflammable organic compounds inside the vehicle and the fire was started with human intervention.  The complainant’s claim was rightly repudiated and the said repudiation of the claim of the complainant is justified.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent has wrongly and illegally repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant whereas he was entitled to get Rs.862562/- i.e. IDV of the vehicle in question.  The respondent has wrongly repudiated the legal claim of the complainant on the ground that as per Forensic Investigation Report, it was observed that there was presence of wide range of inflammable organic compounds inside the vehicle and the fire was started with human intervention.

 

 

 

         In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case law titled as Amarjeet Sihngh Kawatra Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. 2012(4) CLT page 467.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the fire in the car was not caused by short circuit or due to spillage of fuel. During the investigation made by the respondent and as per Forensic Investigation Report, it was observed that there was presence of wide range of inflammable organic compounds inside the vehicle and the fire was started with human intervention.  The complainant’s claim was rightly repudiated and the said repudiation of the claim of the complainant is justified.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

         After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully, we find force in the contentions raised and law cited by the ld.counsel for the complainant.  In the above cited law, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the clause no where says that if the fire takes place because of any defect in the vehicle, then the insurer will not be liable to indemnify, rather the use of words ‘self ignition’ indicates that the insurer is under obligation to indemnify the insured, even the vehicle catches fire without any extraneous cause.  So, keeping in view the above cited law, we find force in the present case and it is held that definitely the complainant is entitled to get the IDV amount of Rs.8,62,562/- from the insurance company and thus, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.862562/- (Rs.eight lacs sixty two thousand five hundred sixty two) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization.  It is made clear here that the complainant shall not claim the salvage of the vehicle in any manner.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

Announced: 14.12.2015