SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.
The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking order directing the opp.party to pay Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation for loss sustained to the complainant’s Maruthi car and Electronic choke kept in the car due to the fire occurrence and to pay compensation Rs.5000/- along with cost to the complainant.
The complainant’s case is that the claim application of the complainant related to the damage sustained the Maruthi car bearing NO.KL.2/N 643 owned by the complainant due to the fire occurrence was rejected by the opp.parties. The reason for rejection by the opp.party will not sustain either in law or on facts.
The opp.parties case is that the claim application is rejected because it is based on an incident occurred due to unlawful and illegal act from the part of the complainant. The fuel used all the time of the accident was gas against the registration particulars. The alleged accident and actual loss was not assessed by the proper and competent person before filing the claim.
The complainant filed affidavit. PW.1 examined, Exts. P1 toP4 marked.
From the part of opp.parties DW.1 examined. Exts. D1 to D5 marked./
Heard both sides.
The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties.
2. Compensation and cost.
Points 1 and 2
The case of complainant is that the Maruthi Omni van bearing No. KL.2/N/643 owned by the complainant met with a fire occurrence while the complainant was traveling through Changanasseri. When the van reached at Perunna, he saw that fire and smoke arising from the vehicle.. Suddenly he rushed out from the car. The car got fired and damaged totally. The fire force team came and stopped fire. The incident was reported to the SI of police Changanasseri. The Changasseri Police Registered a case as per crime 774/04[fire occurrence] The complainant had sustained a loss of Rs.1,75,000/-[market value of the Omnivan] and Rs.11,000/-[price of electronic choke]
The complainant submitted a claim application along with relevant records before the opp.party where he had insured his vehicle and had taken a comprehensive policy for an amount of Rs.1,,69,020/-. But the claim application was rejected stating that there was a Gas cylinder in side the vehicle. The reason stated by the opp.party ia baseless and it will not stand either in law or on facts. The complainant used petrol as fuel at the time of incident. The cause of fire was sparking from the electronic equipments. This reason is mentioned in the survey report also. The repudiation of claim caused to severe pain and mental agony to the complainant. The act of opp.party amounts to deficiency in service from their part.
The case of opp.parties is that the complainant used gas as the fuel in the car against the permission granted to him by the Registration Authorities. The complainant installed gas by some unskilled person unlawfully. Necessary precautions were not taken. It was also confirmed after investigation that there was another spare gas cylinder kept inside the car. The illegal act of the complainant resulted in the fire occurrence. Hence the opp.parties are not liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant lodged the claim with out complying the legal formalities . The incident was not properly assessed by a competent loss Assessor and surveyor. If the inspection was conducted by a Surveyor that will defeat his illegal claim. The complainant had detected fire at the initial stage but he was unable to take remedial step due to reason that he had used Gas as a fuel . He also prevented the public from taking steps. The opp.party conducted survey through a competent surveyor. The survey report specifically stated that the fire occurrence was due to the leakage of gas installed in the car unlawfully. As per the Survey report, the claim was repudiated. The report was prepared after inspection and also after questioning witnesses including the complainant. The statement that the fire was caused due to the sparking of electrical equipments is utter false.
Admittedly the complainant’s vehicle Omni Van bearing No.KL-2N 645 was insured with opp.party for an amount of 169020. It is also admitted that the said vehicle was met with a fire accident and a case was registered as per crime No.774/04, Changanassery Police Station. It is also admitted that permission granted to the complainant by the Registration authorities to use petrol as fuel.
The main contention raised by the opp.party for repudiating the claim application is that the complainant had used gas as the fuel for
running the vehicle against the permission granted by the Registration Authorities and against the contract with the opp.parties. The complainaant’s stand point is that he has used petrol for running the vehicle at the time of accident.
The learned counsel for the opp.party argued that the 1st information report of the Crime No.774/04 would prove that the accident was occurred due to the leakage of gas from the Gas cylinder. The fire report prepared by the Fire service authorities also would confirm that the cause of accident was due to the leakage of gas cylinder. The report made by the competent surveyor and loss assessor also specifically confirm that the cause of accident was due to the leakage of gas. Exts D1 to D3 would prove that the cause of accident was leakage of Gas cylinder.
Regarding this aspect the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had used petrol at that movement. In the 1st information statement given by the complainant he had stated that the vehicle can be run by using petrol and gas as fuel. But at the same time he had categorically stated that at the time of accident he had used petrol as the fuel. As per the report of Scientific Assistant [Chemistry] of the Forensic Science Laboratory , Police Department, Thiruvananthapuram also stated that inflammable liquids could not be detected in the objects sent by the police for chemical analysis. It is also stated in Ext.P2 report that the possibility of fire due to an electronic short circuit cannot be ruled out . It is further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that no where in Ext. D2 report stated that cause of accident was due to leakage of Gas cylinder. In Ext. D2 claim the report prepared by fire station authorities it is stated that the information is only in respect of data furnished to that aspect not necessarily full and accurate as any matter contained their in which can be determined after due investigation by the appropriate agency.
We have perused all the reports and documents adduced from both sides. As argued by the learned by the counsel for the complainant it is stated in the report prepared by scientific Assistant [Chemistry] of the Forensic Science Lab, Police Department that inflammable liquids could not be detected in the MOS 1, 2 and 3 sent by the police for chemical analysis. It is also stated in Ext.P2 report that the possibility of fire due to an electronic short circuit cannot be ruled out. But these documents are not sufficient to prove that the complainant had used petrol as the fuel from running the vehicle and had not used gas as the fuel.
It is stated by the complainant in Ext. D1, FIS that “ ]I 2 aWn-tbm-Sp-IqSn s]cp¶ ssj\n samss_-en-\pw-ap³`mKw tdmUn F¯n-b-t¸mÄ hm\n-\pf-fn ]pI hcp-¶-Xmbn Ip. Rm³ tdm-Unsâ ]Sn-ªm-d-cp-In hm³ \nÀ¯n Cd§n Rm³ Xpd-¶p. . hm\n-\p-f-fn Kymkv knen-À Ccp-¶Xp Xo I¯p-¶Xpw Xo Bfn ]S-cp-¶Xpw Ip. Further he had stated that “ hm\nsâ ]n¶n 2 Kymkv knen--dp-IÄ Dm-bn-cp-¶p.
Even though the complainant had stated that the vehicle can be drive by using gas or petrol and at the time of fire occurrence he had used petrol as fuel, in the above said circumstances this statement is unbelievable. In Exts. D2 fire report also, the cause of fire occurrence is stated as ‘ leakage of gas cylinder’. It is pertinent that these informations are given by the complainant to the concerned authorities immediately after the fire occurrence . In the survey report prepared by the surveyor and loss assessor after the investigation also, the cause of fire stated as ‘from the gas fitted in the car’. It is evident from Exts. D1 to D3 that the fire occurrence is due to the leakage of gas cylinder used and kept inside the vehicle.
The complainant had admitted in the complaint itself that the vehicle was a private vehicle and that the same was used to carry goods for his business purpose. While in cross examination also he had admitted that he had used the vehicle for carrying electronic choke to the shops. It is further admitted that at the time of fire occurrence electric chokes were kept inside the van. The learned counsel for the opp.party put the question that “permit. A\p-k-cn¨v hml\w bm{X sN¿p-¶-Xn-\pv am{X-ta D]-tbmKn¡mhq F¶pw goods sImp-t]m-Im³-D-]-tbm-Kn-¡m³ ]mSn-Ã-F¶pw ]d-bp¶p ?” PW.1 answered that “ thsd amÀ¤w-C-Ãm-¯-Xn-\m application sImSp-¯n-«ppv ]t£ A\p-hZn-¨nà For the further question “\n§Ä passenger vehicle \nb-a-hn-cp-²-ambn vehicle goods vehicle Bbn D]-tbm-Kn-¨-X#sW¶v ]d-bp¶p ? PW.1 answered that” \nb-a-hn-cp-²-am-sW¶v F\n-¡-dn-bnÃv The above admitted facts itself proves that the vehicle was used violating the conditions of policy and against the registration particulars. Hence the complainant is not eligible to get any compensation from the opp.parties .
Even though sufficient opportunity has been given, DW.1 was not cross examined only because of the latches from the side of the complainant. Since the complainant failed to cross examine DW.1 the evidence adduced by the opp.parties stands unimpeached. On the other hand the complainant miserably failed to establish his case.
Considering all the facts, circumstances and evidences on record, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties. There is no cause of action against the opp.parties.
In the result the complainant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Dated this the day of January, 2013.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. –Nazeer
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Letter sent by the Director to the Judicial First Class Magistrate
P2. – Letter sent Molly George to the First Class Magistrate
P3. – Repudiation letter
P4. – R.C. Book [photocopy]
List of witnesses for the opp.party
DW.1. – Baby Ninan
List of documents for the opp.parties
D1. – FIR
D2. – Certified copy of Fire report
D3. – Surveyor’s report and photos
D4. – Certified copy of policy
D5. –Certificate cum policy schedule
