Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/262/2022

Rahul Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kulwinder Singh

13 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                          

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/262/2022
Date of Institution	:	03.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	13/09/2024

 

Rahul Chaudhary S/o Inder Mohan, aged about 35 years, resident of House No 201, Sector-20-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, SCO 36-37, Sector-17-A, Chandigarh through its Incharge/Manager/M.D.

...Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Aniket Sindhar, Advocate for the complainant
	:	Sh.Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the OP.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1.        The present consumer complaint has been filed by complainant against the OP (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OP’).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had purchased one second hand car  make Renault Model Fluence bearing registration No.CH-01AW-2222 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject car’) which was registered in his name vide Ex.C-1 and thereafter he got the subject car insured with the OP vide insurance policy  (Ex.C-2) for an IDV of ₹8.40 lakhs which was valid till 25.10.2021 by paying the premium of ₹12,599/-. On the intervening night of 21/22.09.2021, when he was coming back from the house of his relative at Sector 88, Mohali, something like burning was noticed from the AC vent of the subject car and by the time he could understand, he immediately stopped the car on the roadside in order to check the reason of smell and when he opened the bonnet of the subject car, the flame came out of the bonnet. Immediately, he called the Fire Brigade, SAS Nagar, Mohali and the fire tender extinguished the fire at 2.00 A.M. and issued the Fire Report dated 24.09.2021 (Ex.C-3). The complainant got recorded the DDR No.003 dated 22.09.2021 (Ex.C-4) in this regard with the police station. In the said fire, the subject car was damaged and on obtaining the fire incident report and DDR, he immediately intimated the OP by sending e-mail dated 22.09.2021 (Ex.C-5) about the incident of fire and in reply to the said email, the OP informed the complainant vide email dated 23.09.2021 (Ex.C-6) that the surveyor has been deputed to conduct the survey. Thereafter, the complainant submitted all the requisite documents as desired by the OP. The complainant sent an email dated 25.10.2021 to the OP for processing the claim at the earliest which was followed by reminders/emails dated 04.12.2021 and 25.10.2021 (Exhibit C-7 & C-8).  However, the OP vide e-mail dated 27.01.2022 (Ex.C-11) informed the complainant that the claim has been repudiated in pursuance to the CFL report as it was found that the loss was not due to fire rather the same is an act of arson. The complainant got the estimate of loss from the authorized dealer who had given the estimate (Ex.C-12) to the tune of ₹ 16,07,300/-  but as the IDV value of the subject car is Rs.8,40,000/- , he has confined his claim to that extent only.  The photographs of the burnt subject car are Ex.C-13 (Colly.). It is further alleged that the OP created the survey report (OP-1/2) in his absence nor he was asked to join at the time when CFL team had inspected the subject car nor he was asked to join the process of survey and, therefore, the said report cannot be relied upon. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of facts.   However, it is alleged that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and is more than a bundle of mis-representation of facts. The OP deputed the Forensic Expert and Investigator to investigate the loss of the subject car and Dr.Jassi Anand, Forensic Expert carried out the examination of the subject car and prepared the investigation report dated 19.11.2021 (Ex.OP-1/1) and had ruled out the possibility of occurrence of fire due to short circuit by giving the findings that it was a deliberate attempt to put the subject vehicle on fire on the spot by using some petroleum product. Subsequently, Royal Associates & Co. was deputed as investigator to investigate the loss who submitted the survey report dated 18.12.2021 (Ex.OP-1/2), by opining that the cause of fire is not the short circuit and the subject car was burnt by using petroleum product. On the basis of the said report, the claim was repudiated being not genuine vide letter dated 27.01.2022 (Ex.OP-1/3). On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
   3. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.
2.        In order to prove their respective claims the parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car, as is also evident from the copy of the RC Ex.C-1 and the same was got insured from the OP vide subject policy, which was valid w.e.f. 30.07.2021 to 25.10.2021, as is also evident from the copy of policy (Ex.C-2) and the subject car was burnt in the fire on the intervening night of 21/22.09.2021 at about 1:00 AM and on noticing the fire, he immediately informed the Fire Authorities who extinguished the fire at around 2:00AM and further he reported the matter to the police around 2:14 AM and in pursuant to which DDR (Ex.C-4) was recorded and the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 27.01.2022 (Ex.C-11/Ex.OP-1/3) on the ground that some foreign material (petroleum product) had caused the fire and not due to short circuit etc., the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if it is an act of arson or it is an accidental fire and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or if the OP is justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that the cause of fire is not the short circuit and the complainant has deliberately put the subject car on fire and the complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed,  as is the defence of the OP.
   2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the fact if the cause of fire to the subject car was accidental in nature or the same was result of arson and for that purpose the entire documentary evidence led by the parties i.e. photographs produced by both the parties along with the forensic expert report dated 19.11.2021 (Ex.OP-1/1), survey report dated 18.12.2021 (Ex.OP-1/2) and repudiation letter dated 27.01.2022 (Ex.OP-1/3) are required to be scanned carefully.
   3. Perusal of the photographs having been relied upon by the parties clearly indicates that the subject car was badly burnt in the fire. The OP  has relied upon the forensic expert report dated 19.11.2021 (Ex.OP-1/1) by referring the same even in the repudiation letter, hence the relevant portion of the same are reproduced as under:-

Repudiation Letter:-

       3.   That the forensic expert examined the vehicle on 30-10-2021 in detail and submitted his report dated 19-11-2021 and observed that:-

a.    The back screen is totally broken and the fire only reached the back screen but not upto the back bumper, which is not possible in accidental Tiring

b.    The rear tyre is only slightly burnt and rest of the tyre is in unbunt state and logically, had it been an accidental fire then the rear tyre should have caught the fire vigorously at much speed as compared to the front and the fire, (iii) the paint blisters on top hood have been observed showing greater intensity of fire at that place, (iv) the underside of the wire board were observed and they were not found to be destroyed, (v) condition of the front and rear tyres do not support the accidental fire.

The forensic expert concluded by stating that from the fire chemical analysis of the debris collected, it is revealed that foreign material (petroleum product) has caused the fire and hence proving beyond doubt that the vehicle was burnt using petroleum product.

From the bare perusal of the forensic report, it is evident that the vehicle has been put on fire by you and the cause of loss is not genuine.

4. That after submission of the forensic report, the Company deputed Royal Associates, to investigate the case further. The investigator further confirmed that the cause of loss is not genuine and the findings of the forensic experts stand good.

5. The final survey was conducted by Matrix Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. and they submitted their report but did not recommend for payment of the claim as the cause of loss was not accidental in nature.

6. That you have manipulated the cause of loss and have put the insured vehicle on fire deliberately, the same is clearly outside the scope of the policy. We, therefore, regret to inform you that your claim stands repudiated.”

“Forensic Expert Report;-

(1) From all the above observations and analysis, it has been concluded that the fire has not been ignited due to short circuiting as this feature is absent in the vehicle and further, a slight effect on the wires, showing burnt features are only due to external heat, thus, proving that the vehicle caught fire due to some external product, which resulted into loss of the vehicle

(2) The fire pattern noticed on the metallic body is not showing any continuous flow of fire whereas spontaneous fire pattern was observed which does not indicate or represent the flow of fire from one end to another end.

(3) From the fire chemical analysis of the debris collected, we have revealed foreign material (Petroleum product), hence, proving beyond any doubt that the vehicle was burnt using petroleum product.”

4. It is an admitted case of the parties that the subject car was burnt in the fire on the intervening night of 21/22.09.2021 and the same was examined by the forensic expert on 19.11.2021 i.e. after about two months of the incident and that too without intimation to the complainant, hence on the basis of the said report, it cannot be concluded that the cause of fire was an act of arson as the same is one sided report in order to favour the OP. Perusal of the forensic expert report dated 19.11.2021 (Ex.OP-1/1)  clearly indicates that even the expert has not intimated or called the complainant at the time of examining the subject car, which was examined by her after two months of the fire incident and further it has come in the repudiation letter sent by the OP to the complainant that earlier the surveyor was deputed by the OP who had submitted his report on 28.09.2021 i.e. after 6 days of the incident and that report has not seen the light of the day till date as the same has not been tendered/proved by the OP. Not only this, instead of relying upon the said survey report dated 28.09.2021, the OP has opted to rely upon another survey report dated 18.12.2021 (Ex.OP-1/2) which appears to have been got prepared by it later on just before the issuance of the repudiation letter dated 27.01.2022 (Ex.OP-1/3) and to dislodge the claim of the complainant.
5. Not only this even it is clear from the documents having been relied upon by the OP that firstly  the Insurance Company got the forensic expert report dated 19.11.2021 (Ex.OP-1/1) after two months of the incident and later on again got the survey report dated 18.12.2021 (Ex.OP-1/2), by concealing the earlier survey report dated 28.09.2021 and thus it is clear that the aforesaid documents come under the shadow of doubts so far as the genuineness of the same are concerned and the same cannot be given due credence for the disposal of the case.
6. Moreover, as the forensic expert has given certain observations in her report i.e. the right side of the subject car was not burnt in totality or that the oil tank cover was missing from the subject car and also that the rear tyre is only slightly burnt and rest of the tyre are in unbrunt state etc. are concerned, as it stands proved on record that immediately on noticing the fire in the subject car, the fire authorities had extinguished the fire by 02:00AM and the matter was also reported to the police at 2:14AM, as is also evident from the DDR (Ex.C-4) and further it has come on record that the forensic expert examined the subject car after two months of the incident, it is unsafe to hold that it is an act of arson rather the same was accidental in nature.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
1. Now coming to the quantum of amount, as the surveyor has assessed the net liability of the OP to ₹8,87,029/- which is exceeding the IDV of the subject car i.e. ₹8.40 lakhs and thus, it is safe to hold that the OP is liable to pay the IDV of the subject vehicle to complainant after making deduction of ₹1000/- towards excess clause i.e. ₹8,39,000/-  alongwith interest and compensation etc.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and the OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay aforesaid ₹8,39,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 27.01.2022 onwards. The wreck/salvage of the subject car shall, however, be retained and disposed of by the OP/insurer at its own.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6.        Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7.        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

13/09/2024			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member