BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.17 of 2023
Date of Instt. 12.01.2023
Date of Decision: 25.09.2024
Satvinder Pal Singh aged about 44 yrs S/o Sh. Avtar Singh R/o 681/2, New Guru Nanak Pura West, Chugitti Road, Jalandhar
..........Complainant
Versus
1. TATA AIG General Insurance Company, Limited, SCO 49, 3rd Floor, Ahuja Tower, Puda Complex, Ladhowali Road, Opp. DC Office, Jalandhar through Branch Manager/Managing Director/Director.
2. TATA AIG General Insurance Company, Limited, Penisula Business Park, Tower A, 15th Floor, GK. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 through Branch Manager/Managing Director/Director.
3. Kosmo Vehicle Private Limited, Near Delhi Public School, G.T. Road, Jalandhar through Branch Manager/Managing Director/Director.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Rajiv Kohli, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.
Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle Make TATA Nexon XM (S) CALGARY WHITE P bearing no.PB08-ET-4701, chassis no.MAT627243MLE31807 and Engine No.REVTRNEYXK45225. The complainant purchased vehicle bearing registration no.PBO8-ET-4701 from Gurpreet Singh, who purchased the same from OP No.3 on 30.06.2021 vide invoice no.KVPL/273 and later on the registration certificate was transfer on the name of complainant. At the time of purchase of above vehicle the complainant insured his vehicle from OPs No.1 and 2 and the complainant took the insurance policy for the period of one year vide policy no.31019161400000 from 30.06.2022 to 29.06.2023 and paid the premium of Rs.13,528/-. Unfortunately, on 06.10.2022 the vehicle in question was burned due to fire took place automatically when the same was parked outside of house of the complainant. The matter was duly reported to the police authorities and a DDR No.14 Dated 11.10.2022 was recorded by the police. The matter was also reported to the OPs No.1 and 2. The above said vehicle was taken to the workshop of OP No.3 for repair who gave the estimate of Rs.3 Lakhs approx on 12.10.2022 and the claim of the same was duly lodged with OPs No.1 and 2 who gave the claim no.7211655833 for further enquiry. Thereafter the complainant regularly pursuing the matter with the OP and when did not receive any response then the complainant moved a reminder letter on 16.11.2022 and no response has been given even thereafter, on 24.11.2022 complainant receive the intimation that his above said claim has been rejected by the OP No.2 on the ground that the music system and filets had been got installed in the vehicle by the complainant from outside. After visiting numerous visits by the complainant thereafter to the OPs with respect to the status of vehicle, complainant was astonished to know that the vehicle was not repair as the claim was rejected by the OPs No.1 and 2 and the condition of the vehicle is becoming more detroable due to its non repair. The OP No.3 also intimated complainant through text message with regards to rejection of claim. But the OPs No.1 and 2 failed to provide claim after the same caught fire and when the same was duly insured by the OPs No.1 and 2 and they just harass and humiliate the complainant and put the matter one pretext to other and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the premium of Rs.13,528/ of the policy to the OPs and the paid up value of the policy Rs.7,43,160/- and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,0,000/- alongwith Rs.3 Lakhs on account of repair of the vehicle in question, compensation, financial loss, harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant alongwith cost of litigation Rs.40,000/- total Rs.18,40,000/- be awarded to complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that immediately on the receipt of information qua the damage due to fire on 06.10.2022, caused to vehicle i.e. Tata Nexon car bearing registration no.PB-08-ET-4701, Insured with the company, Mr. Nishant Gupta an independent Engineer, IRDA licensed Surveyor & Loss Assessor (Motor, Engg. & Misc.) was appointed as surveyor to assess the loss to the car in question. The said surveyor submitted his survey report dated 18.11.2022 with the company assessing loss to the tune of Rs.2,91,355.34. Mr. Nishant Gupta in his survey report has stated that as per statement of the insured there was no external source of fire and the fire erupted within the vehicle itself. The loss was discussed with repairer M/s Kosmo Vehicles (P) Ltd., who was then advised to share technical/root cause analysis report. Later as per technical report received from Tata Motors through its authorized dealer M/s Kosmo Vehicles (P) Ltd., it states that extra fitment on the vehicle found fitted in terms of music system & fog lamp which is non-recommended. Now keeping in view the remarks of manufacturer and based upon my physical inspection of the vehicle extra fitment viz Fog Lamps were found fitted whereas the music system was already removed by the insured, in his opinion the external fitments in the vehicle be the root cause of the fire and hence the claim is not maintainable thus the file may be closed. On the receipt of the survey report letter dated 14.11.2022 was sent to the complainant asking for his comment on observation made by the surveyor in his survey report. The said letter was replied by the complainant vide letter dated 16.11.2022 to the company. It is further averred that since the damage was caused to the car of the complainant was due to the fire on account of non-recommended extra fitments in the vehicle, hence the claim filed by the complainant was outside the purview of the insurance policy issued to the complainant, thus, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OPs, that being so the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum with regard to insurance of the vehicle by the complainant is admitted and the factum with regard to information qua the damage due to fire on 06.10.2022 caused to the vehicle is also admitted. It is also admitted that the Surveyor was appointed and assessed the loss, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form, as the same is based upon wrong, false and frivolous facts, as the complainant is guilty of materially concealing and suppressing material facts and has approached this Commission with unclean hands with the sole intention of deceiving this Commission. It is further averred that the complaint is ex-facie, misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit and has made this complaint in order to raise a premeditated, false and frivolous prosecution. On merits, the factum with regard to taken the vehicle to the workshop for repair is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.PB08-ET-4701 purchased on 30.06.2021 from the OP No.3 as per Invoice Ex.C-1 for Rs.8,44,171/- and RC Ex.C-9. The vehicle was insured from the OP No.1 and 2 for the period of one year, which was valid from 30.06.2022 to 29.06.2023 as per Ex.C-2. It is not disputed that the premium was paid. The complainant has alleged that on 06.10.2022 when the car was parked outside of the house of the complainant, it caught fire automatically and damage was caused to the equipments of the car. The matter was duly reported to the police and DDR to this effect was registered on 11.10.2022 as per Ex.C-3 and the intimation was given to the OP also, which has not been denied. It has been alleged by the complainant that when the vehicle was taken to the workshop of OP No.3 for repair, the estimate of Rs.3,00,000/- was given to him and the copy of estimate has been proved as Ex.C-4. Claim was duly lodged with the OP which was rejected by the OP vide Ex.OP1-2/5 on the ground that ‘music system and filets had been got installed in the vehicle by the complainant from outside.’ Surveyor was appointed who submitted survey report dated 18.11.2022 Ex.OP1-2/1 and as per his remarks and opinion the ‘extra fitment on the vehicle was found fitted in terms of music system and fog lamp, which is non-recommended and keeping in view the remarks of manufacturer and based upon physical inspection of the vehicle, extra fitment in the vehicle be the root cause of fire and hence the claim is not maintainable. Thus, the file may be closed’. On the basis of this report of the Surveyor, the OP as per terms and conditions of the policy repudiated the claim vide Ex.OP1-2/5 and the intimation was sent to the complainant.
8. The Surveyor has given the report Ex.OP1-2/2 and as per the plea taken by the OP in the written statement the extra fitment has been done by the complainant from outside the company as alleged by the OP No.3 in their written statement. Perusal of Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 show that the complainant has got the repair done from the OP No.3 against invoice dated 30.06.2021 and then the receipt Ex.C-7 also shows that Rs.6298/- were spent by the complainant for the repair and the receipt was issued by the OP No.3. Both the documents Ex.C-7 and Ex.C8 clearly show that fog lights were fitted and other repair was got done by the complainant from the OP No.3 itself. The OPs have not produced on record any document to show that the complainant has got repaired the vehicle from outside as alleged, which is the root cause of the fire that too while the same was parked outside the house of the complainant. The Surveyor has not mentioned anywhere in the report as to how he has come to conclusion that the complainant had external fitments in the vehicle in terms of music system and fog light. The surveyor has not explained in his report whereas as per Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 the fog lights were fitted from the OP No.3 itself and there was no document on the record to show that any external fitment was there in the vehicle. The repudiation is based on the report of Surveyor only. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a case titled as ‘Uniply Industries Vs. India India Assurance’, decided on 16 July, 2013 that ‘surveyors report cannot be treated as last word and a gospel truth. If the surveyor’s assessment is not in line with the terms of contract, or all material facts are not considered, it is likely to be set-aside.’ In the present case also material facts have not been considered, therefore, the report of Surveyor cannot be relied upon.
9. As discussed above, the OPs have failed to prove that there was any external fitting that too from outside the OP No.3. The manufacturer i.e. OP No.3 has given the statement that the external fitment on the vehicle found fitted in terms of music system and fog lamp, which is non-recommended and this statement was given by the technical report by the technical staff of the OP No.3. If the extra fitment was not recommended and was not suitable to the vehicle and could have caused the fire, then it should not have been fitted by the OP No.3, when the vehicle was sent to the OP No.3 in the year 2021. From the fitment of the fog lamps in the year 2021 till the date when it caught fire, it was running smoothly, but one fine morning suddenly it caught fire and the technical report is given that the extra fitment in terms of music system or fog lamp is not recommended. It was the technical staff to see at the time of fitment as to whether it was recommended or not. This is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to pay Rs.2,52,961/- to the complainant as per estimate Ex.C-4. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
25.09.2024 Member Member President
