Order dictated by:
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. Sh.Gurmeet Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11/12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he purchased one Renault Duster RXL car from Opposite Party No.2 bearing Temporary registration No.PB-03/AB(T)-2990 and permanent registration No.PB-02-CU-0687 white colour, Model 2015, engine No.16002, Chassis No.5089885 for his personal use. Said vehicle got insured from Opposite Party No.3 vide policy No.2015-V3886825-FPV-covering the period from 28.7.2015 to 27.7.2016 against premium of Rs.28,768/-. On 21.10.2015, the complainant parked the said vehicle in front of his house and during the intervening night of 21/22.10.2015 at about 1-00/1.30 PM, the complainant listen hue and cry from outside the house and he came out and found that the vehicle in question was burning and with the help of neighbourers the complainant tried to extinguish the fire. Lateron the complainant came to know that due to some technical/ manufacturing defect in the writing of the vehicle and due to short circuit, the vehicle in question caught fire and totally damaged. The complainant intimated about the loss to the Opposite Party No.3 as the vehicle was fully insured and Opposite Party No.3 appointed surveyor Er.Kaplesh Bayala to assess the loss and the complainant provided all the documents ought by the said surveyor. Lateron, Opposite Party No.3 informed the complainant that the vehicle caught fire due to manufacturing defect in the wiring of the vehicle, therefore, it is the liability of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 to bear the loss caused to the vehicle. The vehicle was brought to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 and on inspection, they informed that the vehicle can not caught fire as mentioned by the complainant and refused to bear the loss and directed the complainant to take up the matter with Opposite Party No.3, but they all refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to refund the amount of the vehicle to the complainant or to replace the same with new one of same model or Opposite Party No.3 may kindly be directed to release the amount of claim covered under the policy in question i.e. Rs.9.98,450/- sum assured by the Opposite Party No.3 alongwith interest @ 24% per annum.
b) Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to make compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental pain, harassment and agony suffered by the complainant due to the unlawful act of Opposite Parties.
c) The cost of the complaint may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has filed the present complaint for the non process of the claim and repair of the complainant vehicle by Opposite Party No.3 i.e. insurance company and Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the service station. As well as it is relevant to mention here that the dispute is between the complainant and Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 for the repair of the vehicle and the repayment of the claim, therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 has been falsely implicated in this complaint by the complainant. It is matter of fact that either the complainant or Opposite Party No.3 has to take the responsibility to pay the dues for the repair and service rendered by the Opposite Party No.2. The vehicle in dispute met with an accident which is not covered within warranty period so Opposite Party No.1 is neither liable jointly or vicariously for repair or replacement of the car in dispute. On merits, as a matter of fact, it is very important to note that on 22nd October, 2015 it was Dusshera and it is a very well known fact that during the Dusshera days most of the children burn crackers in open park and some of them also play pranks with crackers, which sometimes do go wrong and causes an accident. Moreover, it is evident from the contents of complaint that the car in dispute was parked in vacant plot and must have been off from quite a while, so the possibility of a spark or catching the fie is impossible. The mere possibility of the cause of fire is a misfire of cracker, which might have resulted in the complainant car catching the fire. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. Opposite Party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is legally not maintainable under the law. The replying Opposite Party is only service station and as and when the complainant came to get his vehicle repairs or for service, the services were provided accordingly. The Opposite Party No.2 is not liable for any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or any clam due to fire in the said vehicle and as the vehicle was insured with Opposite Party No.3, as such, it is the Opposite Party No.3 who is liable to pay the clam to the complainant and the replying Opposite Party has unnecessarily been arrayed as party to the complaint. On merits, Opposite Party No.2 took up almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. Opposite Party No.3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has rather suppressed the material facts from this Forum, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief claim; that in this case, after receiving the claim from the complainant various letters were issued to him to provide the requisite documents mentioned in the letters required to process the claim, but till date, the complainant has failed to provide the documents, therefore, the claim was closed as ‘No Claim’. On merits, it was averred that as per the information received by the replying Opposite Party, it is apparently clear that the vehicle was caught fire due to manufacturing defect in the wiring of the vehicle in question and there was no sign of any accident, as the loss was manufacturer of the vehicle to indemnify the same and no certificate was provided by the complainant that the loss has not occurred due to manufacturing defect, therefore, the replying Opposite Party is not liable to make good the loss to the vehicle. Hence, there was no deficiency in service, Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the replying Opposite Party. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
5. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence.
6. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Danien Gignoux Ex.OP1/12 and closed the evidence. Similarly, Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Abhilesh Chander, Deputy Manager Ex.Op3/1.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased one Renault Duster RXL car from Opposite Party No.2 bearing Temporary registration No.PB-03/AB(T)-2990 and permanent registration No.PB-02-CU-0687 white colour, Model 2015, engine No.16002, Chassis No.5089885 for his personal use. Said vehicle got insured from Opposite Party No.3 vide policy No.2015-V3886825-FPV-covering the period from 28.7.2015 to 27.7.2016 against premium of Rs.28,768/-. On 21.10.2015, the complainant parked the said vehicle in front of his house and during the intervening night of 21/22.10.2015 at about 1-00/1.30 PM, the complainant listen hue and cry from outside the house and he came out and found that the vehicle in question was burning and with the help of neighbourers the complainant tried to extinguish the fire. Lateron the complainant came to know that due to some technical/ manufacturing defect in the writing of the vehicle and due to short circuit, the vehicle in question caught fire and totally damaged. The complainant intimated about the loss to the Opposite Party No.3 as the vehicle was fully insured and Opposite Party No.3 appointed surveyor Er.Kaplesh Bayala to assess the loss and the complainant provided all the documents ought by the said surveyor. Lateron, Opposite Party No.3 informed the complainant that the vehicle caught fire due to manufacturing defect in the wiring of the vehicle, therefore, it is the liability of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 to bear the loss caused to the vehicle. The vehicle was brought to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 and on inspection, they informed that the vehicle can not caught fire as mentioned by the complainant and refused to bear the loss and directed the complainant to take up the matter with Opposite Party No.3, but they all refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.
9. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.1 is that the complainant has filed the present complaint for the non process of the claim and repair of the complainant vehicle by Opposite Party No.3 i.e. insurance company and Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the service station. As well as it is relevant to mention here that the dispute is between the complainant and Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 for the repair of the vehicle and the repayment of the claim, therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 has been falsely implicated in this complaint by the complainant. It is matter of fact that either the complainant or Opposite Party No.3 has to take the responsibility to pay the dues for the repair and service rendered by the Opposite Party No.2. The vehicle in dispute met with an accident which is not covered within warranty period so Opposite Party No.1 is neither liable jointly or vicariously for repair or replacement of the car in dispute. As a matter of fact, it is very important to note that on 22nd October, 2015 it was Dusshera and it is a very well known fact that during the Dusshera days most of the children burn crackers in open park and some of them also play pranks with crackers, which sometimes do go wrong and causes an accident. Moreover, it is evident from the contents of complaint that the car in dispute was parked in vacant plot and must have been off from quite a while, so the possibility of a spark or catching the fie is impossible. The mere possibility of the cause of fire is a misfire of cracker, which might have resulted in the complainant car catching the fire. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party.
10. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.2 is that the replying Opposite Party is only service station and as and when the complainant came to get his vehicle repairs or for service, the services were provided accordingly. The Opposite Party No.2 is not liable for any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or any clam due to fire in the said vehicle and as the vehicle was insured with Opposite Party No.3, as such, it is the Opposite Party No.3 who is liable to pay the clam to the complainant and the replying Opposite Party has unnecessarily been arrayed as party to the complaint.
11. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.3 is that in this case, after receiving the claim from the complainant various letters were issued to him to provide the requisite documents mentioned in the letters required to process the claim, but till date, the complainant has failed to provide the documents, therefore, the claim was closed as ‘No Claim’. On merits, it was averred that as per the information received by the replying Opposite Party, it is apparently clear that the vehicle was caught fire due to manufacturing defect in the wiring of the vehicle in question and there was no sign of any accident, as the loss was manufacturer of the vehicle to indemnify the same and no certificate was provided by the complainant that the loss has not occurred due to manufacturing defect, therefore, the replying Opposite Party is not liable to make good the loss to the vehicle.
12. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased one Renault Duster RXL car from Opposite Party No.2 bearing Temporary registration No.PB-03/AB(T)-2990 and permanent registration No.PB-02-CU-0687 white colour, Model 2015, engine No.16002, Chassis No.5089885 for his personal use. Said vehicle got insured from Opposite Party No.3 vide policy No.2015-V3886825-FPV-covering the period from 28.7.2015 to 27.7.2016 against premium of Rs.28,768/-. It is also not disputed that on 21.10.2015, the complainant parked the said vehicle in front of his house got burnt due to fire and the complainant lodged the claim with Opposite Party No.3, but they declined the claim of the complainant on the ground that after receiving the claim from the complainant various letters were issued to him to provide the requisite documents mentioned in the letters required to process the claim, but till date, the complainant has failed to provide the documents, therefore, the claim was closed as ‘No Claim’. But to support their contention, the Opposite Party No.3 has failed to produce any record or document on the record that they ever raised any demand of the required documents from the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant has contended that he filed the claim with Opposite Party No.3 and submitted all the relevant documents in support of his claim. In this regard, the complainant has produced on record the copies of those documents which were supplied to Opposite Party No.3 for the disbursement of his claim i.e. copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of DL Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 19.1.2016 issued by Opposite Party No.2 to the complainant with regard to take up the matter of vehicle in question with Opposite Party No.3 Ex.C4, copy of daily diary entry before police station Sultanwind with regard to the vehicle in question Ex.C5, copies of the documents received by Opposite Party No.3 comprising letter dated 19.1.2016 issued by Renault Amritsar to the complainant, copy of DDR, copy of contract detail of TATA Capital, copy of details of repayment to TATA capital, copy of aadhar card Ex.C6 to Ex.C11. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.3 has nowhere rebutted the aforesaid documents produced by the complainant on record. In this way, the Opposite Party No.3 can not wriggle out from its liability to make good the loss to the vehicle in dispute. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation. This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 has held to the following effect:-
“It seems that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy.
The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy.
13. From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that repudiation of claim has erroneously been made by the Opposite Party No.3. The complainant is entitled to claim compensation to the tune of Rs.9,.98,450/- of the vehicle in question on total loss basis.
14. Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds and the Opposite Party No.3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,98,450/- (Rupees nine lakh, ninety eight thousands, four hundred and fifty only) to the complainant as compensation of the vehicle in question, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of RC of the vehicle in question in favour of the Opposite Party No.3, by the complainant. However, the complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 stands dismissed. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which amount awarded will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order until full & final recovery. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 05.04.2017.
