DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 115 of 5.6.2015
Decided on: 13.9.2017
Jaswinder Singh S/o Sh.Nek Singh, aged about 30 years R/o Khalsa Colony, Samana, District Patiala. Mobile No.98156-59794.
…………...Complainant
Versus
The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., Chhoti Baradari, Patiala, through its Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. A. S. Bindra, Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Amit Gupta, Advocate , counsel for opposite party
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Jaswinder Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay compensation of Rs.9,83,000/- plus damages of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum;
- To pay Rs.5000/- as costs of the complaint and
- To grant any other relief which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of Skoda Laura 2.0 Car bearing registration No.HR-06-
W-0110, hypothecated with Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., and insured with the O.P. vide policy No.3001/82130544/00/B00 for the period from 14.8.2013 to 13.8.2014 for an amount of Rs.9,83,000/- having paid an amount of Rs.26,734/-as premium. On 23.7.2014 when the complainant was on the way i.e. from Patiala to Patran and reached near Chanagra Choa, all of a sudden heavy smoke started coming out from the side of bonnet . He immediately stopped the car and came out from the same and saw that the wiring of the car had caught fire. Within seconds it changed the car into ashes after a big sound of blast. The RC/DL and insurance policy alongwith other important papers also burnt alongwith the car. The complainant rang up 101, who advised him to inform the Fire Brigade, Samana but due to low battery of the mobile, he could inform the Fire Brigade. DDR No.27 dated 24.7.2014 was lodged with P. S. Patran, District Patiala. He intimated the OP about the incidence and also lodged the claim with it. The O.P. deputed the surveyor. He supplied all the required information and documents to the surveyor as demanded by him. In the last week of January,2015, the OP repudiated his claim on the ground “Misrepresentation of facts” which is illegal and unjustified. After receipt of the said letter, he approached the O.P. but it failed to hear him and advised to approach the competent court for his redressal. The act and conduct the OP amounted to deficiency in service, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to him. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the O.P. appeared through its counsel and filed the written version having taken the preliminary submissions/objections that the complainant has suppressed the real facts from this Forum ; that the complaint is bad for want of non-joinder of necessary parties; that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which cannot be decided by the Forum in summary proceedings & thus this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint; that there is no cause of action to file the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased insurance policy bearing No.3001/82130544/00/B00, covering the car in question, for the period from 14.8.2013 to 13.8.2014. It is stated that the complainant has suppressed the real facts from this Forum as the car in question bearing No.HR-06-W-0110 was earlier owned by one Krishan Kumar in the year 2011 and the same was insured with TATA AIG GIC Limited, who settled the huge claim of the car in question to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/-approx. which means that the vehicle already become total loss and was not roadworthy and got the same registered in his name. On getting insurance claim from the TATA AIF GIC Ltd., the registration certificate of the vehicle was required to be cancelled as per Section 55 of Motor Vehicle Act which was not got done by the then owner of the vehicle. The complainant also did not disclose this fact to the O.P and managed to procure the insurance thereof from the OP. It is stated that as per the report of Forensic Expert Report, the cause of fire was not electrical short-circuit but the same was caused due to booth space using ignitable fire accelerants. It is further stated that the complainant has failed to provide any supporting evidence with regard to his movements and communications before and after the incidence. It is admitted that the surveyor Er.Ranjit Singh Chandoke,was appointed for survey of the vehicle in question who submitted his report dated 19.12.2014, having observed that:
“14.1 The claim is not payable because on accounts of misrepresentation of facts. As per Forensic Investigation report of the vehicle, the cause of fire does not tally with the cause of accident. Company may take decision as per his discretion.”
It is stated that after considering each and every aspect of this case, it has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 21.1.2014.There is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.After denouncing all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint .
4. On being called to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA, sworn affidavit of the complainant, alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7, and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Ms Meenu Sharma, Legal Manager of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., Chandigarh, alongwith documents, Ex.OP1 to OP7 and Ex.OP9. The evidence of the OP was closed by order of the Forum.Ex.OP8 i.e. copy of hypothecation agreement was tendered in the statement of Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Retainer,Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. and was examined as OPW 2 .
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the evidence on record, carefully.
6. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the OP has raised the objection that the car in question, which was earlier owned by Krishan Kumar was duly insured with the TATA AIG Limited in the year,2011, met with an accident and it being a total loss , the said insurance company had paid a claim of Rs.13lac to said Sh.Krishan Kumar. As per Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, on getting the insurance claim from said Tata AIG Limited, the registration certificate of the vehicle in question was required to be cancelled , which was not done by the then owner and complainant purchased the said vehicle and managed to get the insurance from the OP by concealing the material fact. As such, the complainant is not entitled to get any insurance claim from the OP.
On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the OP has issued the policy in question qua the said vehicle after proper verification and as such the aforesaid objection raised by the OP is not sustainable
7. From the copy of cover note,Ex.C3, it is evident that the car in question was duly insured with the OP for the period from 14.8.2013 to 13.8.2014. It may be stated that it was the bounded duty of the OP to check the vehicle concern properly before issuance of insurance policy. Failure on the part of the OP to fulfill its basic duties, cannot be permitted to raise the objection that the complainant has managed to get the insurance with regard to the vehicle in question by concealing the material information. Hence rejected. The ld. counsel for the OP has raised the 2nd objection that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party. It may be stated that this objection has already been dealt with by this Forum vide order dated 9.9.2015, thus needs no consideration.
8. On merits, the ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the car in question met with an accident on 23.7.2014 at about 11PM. The complainant duly informed the police and lodged the DDR No.27 dated 24.7.2014,Ex.C2 and also informed the OP on the same date. However, the OP instead of paying him the claim amount, has wrongly repudiated his claim in the month of January,2015 on the ground of “Misrepresentaion of facts”. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the Op has submitted that since the complainant had not disclosed the exact cause, manner, place and time of loss, therefore, the OP appointed investigator and forensic science expert to investigate the matter. The said Forensic Science Expert, has opined that the fire in car reported to have occurred on the night intervening 23rd and 24th July,2014 at about 2330 hrs near a culvert on Chungara road, Patra, District Patiala was ,
- Not on account of mechanical or combustion failures,
- Quite unlikely on account of electric short circuit
- And could have been on account of initiation of fire in the boot space using ignitable fire accelerants such as automotive fuel oil or motor oil, containing hydrocarbon which are susceptible to fire
- The failure of the owner –cum-driver to provide supporting evidence to prove his movements and communications before and after the incidentce and his unpreparedness to travel with the mobile phone in charged condition and failure to react to the incidence in a normal model leads to probability that he may be responsible for stage managing the incident.
Even the surveyor has also recommended that the claim is not payable as the cause of fire does not tally with the cause of accident. Accordingly , the OP, on the basis of the reports given by the Forensic Science Expert and of the Investigator/Surveyor has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. We find force in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the OP because the Forensic Science Expert, in his report,Ex.OP1 has mentioned that absence of traces of evidence of the battery and its connecting cables in the engine of the compartment of the car strongly indicate that sparking in the wires and blast occurring in a few seconds as reported by the owner cum driver, who is the lone witness appear to be misleading. It is also mentioned in the said report that once the fire was ignited it would have spread to the other parts of the body and all those flammable and combustible material inside the car and in the engine in the form of synthetic, rubber and fabric materials could have burnt. The tyres could have also got burnt when other parts of the car started burning. Even the investigator/surveyor vide its report Ex.OP2 has reported that the claim is not payable. The said reports of the Forensic Science Expert and the investigator/Surveyor have not been challenged by the complainant . It may be stated that report of Forensic Science Expert and of Investigator/Surveyor have significant evidentiary value and cannot be displaced unless it is contradicted by creditable evidence to the contrary. Our view is supported by the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deen Dayal II(2009)CPJ 45(NC), wherein it has been held that “surveyor report being an important document cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material to contrary on record . Since the OP has repudiated the claim on the basis of the reports, Forensic Science expert and of Investigator/surveyor, therefore, the OP cannot be said to be deficient in providing service.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and consequently we dismiss the same without any order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 13.9.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
