DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 659/2015
D.No._________________ Dated: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
OSHO KHATRI,
S/o SH. RAJENDER KHATRI,
R/o P-36, DAHIYA X-RAY WALI GALI,
PANA UDYAN, NARELA,
DELHI-110040.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER,
60, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110020.… OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 06.07.2015 Date of decision:02.12.2019
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. Skoda Laura bearing Registration No. DL-13-C-1058 in Sep-2014, after purchase of the said car, the complainant transferred the
CC No. 659/2015 Page 1 of 8
Registration Certificate in his name. After the purchase of the said car, the agent of OP came to the premises of the complainant and took the photographs and filled the application/documents and insured the said car bearing policy no.1315242311000585 and the policy period is from 03.02.2015 to 02.02.2016 (mid-night) and the IDV of the vehicle of Rs.8,52,350/-. On 31.03.2015, the said vehicle was completely burnt near Ghoga Dairy, Narela Road, Delhi while driving the car due to short-circuit and immediately the police department, fire brigade, insurance company was informed and in this regard, the police department gave a report and the fire brigade also gave report and the news of the said incident was also published in the newspaper. The said car was driven by the complainant and due to this fire-incident, the hands, foot, face and neck of the complainant were also burnt and the complainant was taken to nearest Hospital Satyawadi Raja Harish Chandra Hospital, Narela, Delhi and the said hospital gave MLC report. The complainant further alleged that the complainant approached OP for the claim of the total loss of the said car and supplied all required documents also to OP and approached several times to OP but there is no proper response given by OP 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
CC No. 659/2015 Page 2 of 8
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, mentalagony 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 that the complaint as filed by the complainant does not fall under the preview of the Consumer Protection Act. OP further submitted that immediately after receiving intimation of the loss, OP appointed Truth Labs, Delhi as technical experts and accordingly, Truth Labs appointed 2 members team comprising of Mr. Chetan Kumar, Director and Ms. CharuHindwan, Assistant Director of Truth Labs to investigate the matter and to collect the evidences and the 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. During the investigation into the matter by the appointed investigators and on the site of accident, there was a big dried patch of some liquid on the right side of the burnt mark almost in the middle of the road and burnt debris alongwith the pieces of glass was found lying/scattered on the left side of the road and beyond the left edge of the road. After collecting all debris, samples of the burnt car was sent to LUID Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. at Hyderabad for chemical analysis and GC-MS analysis of the samples of the burnt debris revealed the presence of hydrocarbons such as Hexadecane
CC No. 659/2015 Page 3 of 8
which typically represents extraneous ignitable fire accelerant like kerosene or diesel oil and other alipathic hydrocarbons and flammable, combustible and organic compounds. OP further submitted that the appointed surveyor also observed that the distance between Fire Station Bawana and site of accident is only 5 KMs and the fire brigade reached the spot within 15 minutes of receipt of call and the patterns of the fire and the effects of the fire observed in the exteriors and in the interiors of the burnt car strongly indicate that it was subjected to sustained and intense burning for a prolonged period which is in contradiction to the statement of insured that they informed fire brigade immediately after they noticed the fire. OP further submitted that insured namely Osho Khatri has given the statement that they started their journey from Village Daryapur and only travelled 4 KMs when the temperature meter in the dashboard indicated abnormal heat in the engine and further stated that he stopped the car to check the engine and based on the statement the car could have experienced a minor mechanical or electrical or combustion defect in the engine portion within a distance of about 4 KMs and within such short distance, such an enormous heat which raised the temperature abnormally that would burn the engine and spread to the driver’s seat in a short span of 6-7 minutes of travel time. OP further submitted that it is found that driver has sustained burnt injuries on the right portion of the body and it been the correct story that
CC No. 659/2015 Page 4 of 8
fire broke into the cabin through AC vent, then burnt injuries should have been on the left side of the body of the driver sitting in the cabin of the car and the insured have sustained burn injuries while stage managing the fire in the car with the help of extraneous ignitable fire accelerants. OP further submitted that the statement of the insured that his friend has opened the bonnet of the car is also not true as with such an intense fire in the car engine, it is not possible to even touch the metal bonnet rather than to open the same by pushing the lever under the bonnet by hand and fire brigade reached on the spot and started the fire fighting operation within 15 minutes of the breakage of the fire but the damages of the fire on vehicle wherein entire vehicle is burnt and noting is found in state of half burnt is not possible within 15 minutes of the fire. OP further submitted that it is very clearly mentioned in the police report that vehicle is found in state of burnt when they reached on the spot of the fire whereas insured has stated that police reached the spot of the incident within 5 minutes of the call and the burnt debris collected from the area near the driver’s seat indicates the presence of the hydrocarbons such as hexadecane which typically represents extraneous ignitable fire accelerant like kerosene or diesel oil or other aliphatic hydrocarbons and flammable, combustible organic compounds and as per the report of GC-MS analysis the pattern of the fire clearly shows prolonged and localized burning of engine and interiors with the aid of ignitable
CC No. 659/2015 Page 5 of 8
fire accelerants. OP further submitted that on the basis of expert report and chemical evolution OP has taken decision in the claim reported and repudiated the claim vide letter dated 16.06.2015 on the account of violation of condition no. 1 & 8 of 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. 1315242311000585 for the period from 03.02.2015 to 02.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.8,52,350/- issued by OP, copy of RC, copy of driving license of the complainant, copy of complaint dated 31.03.2015 lodged by the complainant to the Police, P.S. Narela, Delhi and copy of fire report details dated 18.06.2015 issued by the Department of Delhi Fire Service, copy of newspaper cutting, copy of history/clinical findings/report dated 31.03.2015 issued by Satyawadi Raja Harish Chandra Hospital, Narela, Delhi & copy of photographs of the complainant.
6. On the other hand,Sh. Abhishek Bhardwaj, 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 and copy of repudiation letter dated 16.06.2015. OP has also filed written arguments.
CC No. 659/2015 Page 6 of 8
7. 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 complainant met with fire 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 the complainant. It is also hard to believe that the complainant would cause danger to his life in order to succeed in insurance claim by staging accidental fire in his car as contended by OP. Now-a-days AC vents in the car are available on all the sides of the car. SO, it cannot be said that the fire emanating from AC vents will cause burn injuries on the left side portion of the body of the driver who is the complainant. 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.
10. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,52,350/- being the
CC No. 659/2015 Page 7 of 8
IDV value of the vehicle and the complainant to give relevant Forms to OP.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused.
iii) To pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.15,000/- 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 2ndday of December, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 659/2015 Page 8 of 8
