State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance Gen.Insurance Co. vs Dinesh Kumar on 15 September, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 1165 of 2016 Date of Institution: 05.12.2016 Date of Decision: 15.09.2017 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, SCO No.400-401-402, HDFC Bank Building, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager, through its Authorized Signatory Sh. Amit Chawla, Regional Office SCO 145-146, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. Appellant-Opposite Party Versus Dinesh Kumar son of Rajender Parshad, resident of House No.385, Ward No.27, Gali No.7, Shakti Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. Respondent-Complainant CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Present: Shri Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the appellant Shri Rohan Jain, Advocate for the respondent- complainant O R D E R NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party (for short 'the Insurance Company') is in appeal against the order dated September 15th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short 'the District Forum') whereby complaint filed by Dinesh Kumar-complainant was allowed. The Insurance Company was directed to make the payment of Rs.3,29,000/- (Insured Declared Value) of the car alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of loss, that is, July 05th, 2015 till realization and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses to the complainant on account of damage of car in a fire incident.
2. The complainant got his car bearing registration No.HR63B-3963 insured with the Insurance Company for the period September 09th, 2014 to September 08th, 2015. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.3,29,000/-. On July 05th, 2015 the car caught fire. The complainant lodged Daily Diary Report with the Police on July 06th, 2015. The complainant submitted claim before the Insurance Company. The claim was not settled. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.
3. The Insurance Company, in its written version pleaded that the car caught fire due to deliberate setting of fire to the stationary car by pouring ignitable fire accelerants all over the body and in the interiors of the car cabin in an attempt to stage manage fire by someone.
4. While assailing the order of the District Forum, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that the car caught fire due to human intervention. In support, reliance was placed upon the report of Truth Labs (Annexure A-4).
5. The contention raised is not tenable. Indisputably, the car was burnt on July 05th, 2015 and DDR was lodged on the next day of the incident. Truth Labs report (Exhibit A-4) finds mention of the DDR under heading "II Documentary Evidence Collected" the relevant part of which reads as under:-
"1. Photocopy of Fire Report dated 05th July, 2015 of Fire Station, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana (Enclosed as Annexure -I). According to the Fire Report, the fire station received intimation about the fire incident at 23:25 hours. The fire brigade left the fire station at 23:26 hours. The fire brigade left the fire scene at 00:19 hours the next day i.e. 6th July, 2015. The fire report mentions the cause of fire as short circuit as stated by the driver Mr. Sandeep and that the car was completely burnt.
2. Photocopy of Daily Diary No.13 dated 6th July, 2015 of Police Post, Sector 9, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana in respect of the fire incident (Enclosed as Annexure -II). According to this report, the driver Mr. Sandeep stated before the police authorities that on 5th July, 2015 he was travelling by the said car from Najafgarh-Bahadurgarh Road, smoke starting coming from the car. As soon as they got down the car, the car started burning in flames."
6. In the later part of the report (Annexure A-4) under the heading "Results of chemical analysis" it is mentioned as here under:-
"The samples of burnt debris collected from different areas of the burnt car were subjected to GC-MS analysis and the results revealed the presence of ignitable fire accelerants such as Hexadecane, Pentadecane, 2, 6, 10, 14-tetramethyl, 1-Undecanol in Samples No.3, 4 and 5 of burnt debris collected from different areas of the burnt car."
7. Though in the conclusion it was mentioned that the car caught fire "on account of deliberate setting of fire to the stationary vehicle by pouring ignitable fire accelerants all over the body and in the vehicle cabin in an attempt to stage manage the accident cum fire deliberately by someone", the same cannot be accepted as the report itself indicates that the presence of aromatic hydrocarbons and other organic compound found, are used in the engine.
8. In view of above, it cannot be held from the report of Truth Labs that the vehicle was burnt by the complainant as pleaded by the Insurance Company. The complainant was not to gain by setting the car on fire. So, the inference of the Truth Labs is inconsistent to the documents collected by them. In view of this, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced 15.09.2017 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President