Haryana

Karnal

CC/394/2019

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vikram Singh

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 394 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.08.07.2019

                                                        Date of Decision: 20.07.2021

 

Vijay Kumar age 48 years son of Balbir Singh, resident of House no.1486/22, Arya Nagar, Sonepat.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Manager, Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 334, Basement, Mugal Canal Market, Karnal, 132001.

 

2.     The Manager, Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Head office: Dare house, second floor no.2, N.S.C., Bose Road, Chennai-600001.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

      

 Argued by: Shri Vikram Singh, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Vineet Rathore, counsel for opposite parties.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle Skoda Laura Car bearing registration no.HR-70-B-0471 and the same is insured with the OPs, vide policy bearing no.000000045454. On 21.11.2017, the complainant was driving the said vehicle. While coming from Mamoni (Rajasthan) to Karnal (M.P.) at about 8.00p.m. when complainant reached at near about Sumitra University, Rajpura, Tehsil Sahabad, District Bara, Rajasthan then suddenly smoke came out of the dashboard. Thereafter, the complainant stopped the car on road side and the moment complainant came out of the car then suddenly fire occurred in the car due to short circuit. The accident was unfortunate and unavoidable. The complainant was not at fault in any manner. In the said accident the vehicle of the complainant had been completely damaged. On the same day complainant had given a report to the Police Station Sahabad District Bara, Rajasthan at 10.07 p.m. vide report no.30 regarding this accident. On 22.11.2017, the complainant intimated the OPs regarding the said accident and thereafter the surveyor of the OPs visited the place of accident and inspected the vehicle and said to the complainant that vehicle got total damaged and they will pass the total loss claim amount.  After waiting sufficient time complainant approached the OPs and enquired about the status of the claim but OPs did not bother the same and lastly issued a letter to complainant in which OPs have denied the claim of the complainant on the false and baseless ground. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.6,00,000/- for total loss claim of the vehicle in question and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the fire in the car in question was not caused by accidental. During the investigation made by the OPs and as per Forensic Investigation report, it was observed that fire happened due to extraneously poured ignitable fire accelerants on the car, which has resulted to the loss of the insured vehicle and the same is clear violation and gross negligence. It is further pleaded that complainant has tried to alter the material facts and intentionally damaged the vehicle to drive benefit out of insurance. This is a violation of policy conditions Utmost good faith and also the act of self destruction and is not covered under the policy terms and conditions. Hence, the claim of the complainant is rightly repudiated. In the additional plea OPs pleaded that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of incident. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of driving licnece of complainant Ex.C1, copy of RC of the vehicle in question Ex.C2, copy of insurance policy Ex.C3, copy of Police Report Ex.C4, copy of order dated 30.05.2019 passed by District Commission, Sonepat.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs have tendered into evidence affidavit of Abhishek Nigam working as Assistant Manager Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Manmohan Pareta Insurance Investigator Ex.OP1/B, affidavit of Dr. TSN Murthy Forensic Expert Ex.OP1/C, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP1, copy of claim form Ex.OP2, copy of letter dated 16.01.2018 Ex.OP3, copy of investigation report Ex.OP4, copy of Forensic Investigation Report Ex.OP5, copy of statement of complainant Ex.OP6, copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs on 22.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is registered owner of the vehicle in question and the same was got insured with the OPs. On 21.11.2017 the said vehicle of the complainant got fired and totally damaged due to short circuit in the area of Sumitra University, Rajpura, Tehsil Shahabad, District Bara, Rajasthan. Complainant informed the Police Station Shahabad District Bara, Rajasthan, vide report no.30 regarding the said incident. The complainant has also informed the OPs with regard to the said incident. Thereafter, several requests were made to the OPs for releasing of the claim but OPs failed to settle the claim and lastly prayed for allowing the present complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel of the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued during the investigation made by the OPs and as per Forensic Investigation report, it was observed that fire happened due to extraneously poured ignitable fire accelerants on the car, which has resulted to the loss of the insured vehicle and the same is clear violation and gross negligence. He further argued that complainant has tried to alter the material facts and intentionally damaged the vehicle to drive benefit out of insurance. Hence, the claim of the complainant is rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, that complainant got insured his vehicle with the OPs for the period of 29.12.2016 to 28.12.2017 for the sum insured of Rs.6,00,000/-. It is also admitted that the vehicle in question got fired during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs, vide repudiation letter Ex.OP3 on the following grounds:-

“we wish to state that there has been deliberate and willful misrepresentations on your part regarding the cause of loss, as the damages to the vehicle are not one arising out of an accident as represented by you.

It has been observed that your vehicle had got fired on willful and got damages as per Forensic Lab report and fire happened due to extraneously poured ignitable fire accelerants on IV, which has resulted to the loss of the insured vehicle, which is clear violation and gross negligence.

We hope you will appreciate our sand that payment of any claim has to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy issued. While expressing our inability to pay this claim due to the abovementioned reason, we reiterate our commitment to pay all admissible claims fairly and promptly”.

The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs on the basis of Forensic Investigation Report Ex.OP5 dated 22.12.2017. The Forensic expert of the OPs after thoroughly examining the burnt wires did not notice any symptoms of short circuit. From the fact that the fire was very intense and, in the event of an accidental fire due to short circuit, the progression of fire could be slow. The photographs provided by the complainant showed that the flames were existing on the left side of windshield and not originated from the dashboard. Further, the team of the Forensic Expert came to the conclusion that this is the case of fire due to extraneously poured ignitable fire accelerants over the left side of the windshield and then intentionally and maliciously sitting fire in the process of stage managing an accidental fire.

11.           On perusal of the Forensic Investigation Report Ex.OP5, the flames existed on the left side of the windshield but as per the version of the complainant, the smoke came out of the dashboard of his car. Furthermore, as per the statement Ex.OP6 of the complainant, prior to incident, has given his car to his nephew but complainant did not show the purpose for handing over the said car to his nephew and how and when he alongwith son went to receive back the said car and left for Sonepat at about 7.45 p.m. in the late hours. Thus the version of the complainant is not believable.  It has been proved on the record that fire is not occurred due to short circuit and mechanical defect. It appears that complainant himself  has set the vehicle in question on fire just for getting the claim from the OPs.

12.           In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OPs. Hence, the complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed.

13.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we dismiss the present complaint. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:20.07.2022

 

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                         Member