State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Regional Manager Sbi General Insurance ... vs Guddi Kindo & Ors on 27 November, 2025
Appeal Nos.: Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Date of
FA/2024/592 Vs. Pronouncement:
Guddi Kindo & Ors. 27/11/2025
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Date of Institution: 13/09/2024
Date of Final Hearing: 28/10/2025
Date of Pronouncement: 27/11/2025
APPEAL No.- FA/2024/592
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
4th Floor, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Dhamtari Road,
Raipur (C.G.) ... O.P. No.2/ Appellant No.1
2. Chief General Manager,
SBI General Insurance Corporate & Registered Office,
9th Floor, A & Wing Full Crum Building, Sahar Road, Andheri East,
Mumbai (Maharashtra) Pin - 400 099 ... O.P. No.3/ Appellant No.2
Both through: Shri K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate
Vs.
1. Guddi Kindo, W/o. Shri Vipin Kindo,
R/o. Village Badhiyachuwa, Khairabar, Tah. Ambikapur,
Dist. Surguja (C.G.) ... Complainant/ Respondent No.1
Through: Shri Suryakant Sharma, Advocate
2. Branch Manager, Dealer - Mahindra Tractors, Ambikapur,
Dist. Surguja (C.G.) ... O. P. No.1/ Respondent No.2
3. Branch Manager, Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur,
Dist. Surguja (C.G.) ... O. P. No.4/ Respondent No.3
Both through: Shri Nimesh Shukla, Advocate
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER
PRESENT: -
Shri K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate for appellant Nos.1 & 2.
Shri Suryakant Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Nimesh Shukal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
ORDER
PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short), is preferred against order dated 28.06.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambikapur, Surguja (CG) (hereinafter called "District Commission" for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2024/26 whereby the complaint was allowed directing the opposite party Nos.2 & 3/ the appellants herein insurance company to pay within 45 to the complainant/ respondent No.1 IDV of the insured tractor Rs.6,00,000/- (Six Lacs) with interest thereon Dismissed Page 1 of 10 Appeal Nos.: Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Date of FA/2024/592 Vs. Pronouncement:
Guddi Kindo & Ors. 27/11/2025 @6% p.a. from the date of order till the date of payment along with Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) as cost of litigation. It was further directed that the opposite party Nos.2 & 3/ appellants shall deposit the ordered amount as above with the District Commission, which the opposite party No.4/ respondent No.3 herein the Financier shall be able to receive as per rules and if any amount remains in excess after payment of loan, then the complainant/ respondent will be able to receive the same. It was also directed that if the ordered amount is not paid within the stipulated period of 45 days, the opposite party Nos.2 & 3/ appellants shall pay interest @ 8% p.a. Aggrieved the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 insurance company have preferred this appeal.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent No.1 purchased a Mahindra tractor bearing registration No.CG-15-DX-2926 on 03.03.2022 from the opposite party No.1/ respondent No.2 Dealer with the help of finance provided by opposite party No.4/ respondent No.3, which was insured by the opposite party Nos.2 & 3/ appellants insurer for the period from 29.11.2023 to 28.11.2024. On 17.12.2023. As per averments made in the complaint, while threshing paddy, the engine of the vehicle caught fire due to a short circuit and totally destroyed. Information of the said incident along with photographs, was submitted to the police station, Kotwali, Ambikapur, on 18.12.2023 and insurance claim was submitted to the opposite party Nos.2 & 3/ appellants insurance company, for IDV of the tractor Rs.6,00,000/-. But, after an inspection by the surveyor sent by the insurance company and submission of his report to the insurance company the accident was declared to be fake and claim was rejected on 16.02.2024, alleging which as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice complaint was filed before Dismissed Page 2 of 10 Appeal Nos.: Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Date of FA/2024/592 Vs. Pronouncement:
Guddi Kindo & Ors. 27/11/2025 the District Commission seeking directions for payment of IDV of the tractor Rs.6,00,000/- with interest, compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation etc.
3. The opposite party Nos.2 & 3/ appellants insurance company denied the allegations made in the complaint and resisted it mainly reiterating the ground of repudiation of claim in repudiation letter dated 16.02.2024 stating that the cause of fire was not due to short circuit rather it was due to presence of accelerant materials residue of hydrocarbons i.e. petrol, diesel, kerosene, alcohol and other accelerants which are in line with the fire patterns observed in the case. In order to gain undue advantage from the insurance company the complainant/ respondent No.1 mis-represented and manipulated facts, whereas as per the policy conditions the insured shall have to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition, which he failed to do. Thus, the complainant/ respondent No.1 is not entitled to get any relief from the insurance company and the complaint deserves to be dismissed accordingly.
4. The opposite party No.4/ respondent No.3 admitted the fact of providing loan for purchase of the tractor in question and stated that an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- is still outstanding in the loan account. Whereas the opposite party No.1/ respondent No.2 remained ex-parte.
5. Learned District Commission in the impugned order observed that on the basis of unilateral investigation regarding incident of fire, without providing copy of investigation, sample lab and FSL report or the copy of the final survey report issued by the surveyor to the complainant/ respondent No.1, unilaterally the insurance claim was rejected without giving him opportunity to present his side which is not justified, in such a Dismissed Page 3 of 10 Appeal Nos.: Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Date of FA/2024/592 Vs. Pronouncement:
Guddi Kindo & Ors. 27/11/2025 situation, the complainant/ respondent No.1 should be compensated for the total loss caused to his insured vehicle due to fire with the IDV of the insured vehicle Rs.6,00,000/-, mentioned in the policy document. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.
6. Final arguments heard. Record as well as written arguments submitted by the appellants/ opposite party Nos.2 & 3 perused.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants / opposite party Nos.2 & 3 reiterating the averments made in the compliant has argued before us that forensic examination categorically confirmed that traces of diesel fuel were detected at the site and on the burnt parts, the burn pattern was consistent with intentional ignition (arson) and not accidental combustion, despite repeated reminders, the respondent No.1 / complainant failed to cooperate, attempted to conceal material facts and photographs and documents relied upon by the respondent No.1/ complainant were found to be altered and unreliable, but learned District Commission failed to properly appreciate the categorical forensic report and solely relying upon self-serving version of the respondent No.1/ complainant, contrary to the settled principle of law has allowed the complaint by the impugned order, which, being erroneous, needs to be set aside allowing this appeal, whereas learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint has supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
8. The repudiation letter dated 16.02.2024, Exhibit C-4, copy of which was filed by the insurer also as OP(2,3) Exhibit-2, running into seven pages, contains the gist of the Forensic Report along with photographs, the analysis done and the interpretation. Before us copy of complete Fire Forensic Report of Bombay Forensic dated 08.02.2024, in 24 pages, has Dismissed Page 4 of 10 Appeal Nos.: Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Date of FA/2024/592 Vs. Pronouncement:
Guddi Kindo & Ors. 27/11/2025 been filed on record by the appellants/ opposite party Nos.2 & 3 along with an application under order 41 rule 27 of CPC, I.A. No.01/2025, which has already been allowed and documents are taken on record for consideration.
9. In the said Fire Forensic Report the final Forensic Conclusion given by the expert is as under : -
"[5] FORENSIC CONCLUSION:
Based on the Fire Forensic and analysis of the fire affected vehicle and site of incident followed by search, identification, collection of physical, digital, documentary evidence, analysis of all the evidences and testing of physical evidence, it is concluded that the,
1. The incident of fire reported to have occurred in the vehicle registration number CG15DX2926 was, a) not due to natural causes, b) not due to self-ignition cause, c) not due to mechanical failure cause, d) not due to electrical malfunction cause, but e) due to arson cause.
2. Based on the fire pattern forensic analysis, it is observed that the fire originated at the front engine portion and rear seating portion of the vehicle and then propagated.
3. Based on the conducted testing analysis of the relevant fire debris samples collected from the vehicle, revealed that there is presence of accelerant material residue hydrocarbons in the collected samples number 01 and 03. The said hydrocarbon residue detected are traces of accelerant fuel (Diesel) which is highly ignitable.
4. The hydrocarbon found in the samples number 01 and 03, which was collected from the vehicle battery and driver seating area, where there is no possibility to get the presence/produce of such accelerant material. The presence of hydrocarbon at the vehicle battery and driver seating area, evidence that the fire did not occur due to electrical short circuit, it would have occurred/accelerated on an account of human intervention.
5. In this case, fire incidence scenario mentioned by insured, stating that the vehicle caught fire, moved and U-turned is not possible, indicating that the insured's mentioned scenario is fabricated and also as per the after fire photographs captured details analysis, it is found that the photographs captured date has been manipulated with motive, which proves that the date of loss is manipulated.
Hence, it is observed that the insured is hiding the fact of the said incidence.
6. Insured is non-cooperative to provide the necessary requirements, even after several reminders."
The above forensic conclusion says that the fire reported to have occurred in the insured vehicle was not due to natural causes, not due to self-ignition cause, not due to mechanical failure cause and not due to electrical malfunction cause, but due to arson cause. The fire did not occur due to electrical short circuit, it would have occurred/ accelerated on an Dismissed Page 5 of 10 Appeal Nos.: Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Date of FA/2024/592 Vs. Pronouncement:
Guddi Kindo & Ors. 27/11/2025 account of human intervention. There appears no concrete reason to disbelieve the above conclusions drawn by the forensic expert and we are not parting away from the above conclusion, but at the same it is also true that the above report nowhere proves intentional intervention of the respondent No.1/ complainant in the said fire incident.
10. Even if, for the sake of arguments the above forensic conclusion is believed, several questions are still unanswered, particularly if we believe intentional intervention or arson by the respondent No.1/ complainant then, the first and foremost question arises regarding the motive, because considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not in a position to digest that total loss of the vehicle could provide any or additional benefit to its owner respondent No.1/ complainant compared to happily using the vehicle. As the IDV of the vehicle, as per the insurance policy available at page No.46 of the record, was Rs.6,00,000/- and in the loan account of the insured vehicle an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- was outstanding, as has been contended by the financier respondent No.3/ opposite party No.4 in its written version. Statement of Loan Account OP(4) Exhibit-1, also demonstrates that the three installments of Rs.80,000/- were already paid without any delay, default or stress, which is sufficient to conclude that the vehicle was being happily used by the respondent No.1/ complainant. Thus, no substantial benefit would have possible to be gained by the owner respondent No.1/ complainant.
11. Otherwise also, there is no any cogent evidence to prove intention arson by the respondent No.1/ complainant in the fire incident. In the circumstances, considering that no additional benefit was possible to be gained by the respondent No.1/ complainant in total loss of the vehicle, hence there is lack of motive for intentional arson, we are of the view that the appellants insurer has failed to prove with preponderance of Dismissed Page 6 of 10 Appeal Nos.: Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Date of FA/2024/592 Vs. Pronouncement:
Guddi Kindo & Ors. 27/11/2025 probabilities, beyond all reasonable doubts, that the respondent No.1/ complainant instigated fire, manipulated anything or was negligent in taking reasonable steps for safeguarding the insured vehicle.
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent reportable judgement in Orion Conmerx Pvt. Ltd vs National Insurance Co. Ltd, 2025 INSC 1271; CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3855 OF 2020 decided on 30.10.2025 has explained the expression 'fire' for the purpose of insurance cover as under : -
"33. It is settled law that the contract of fire insurance is a contract to indemnify the Insured against loss by fire. The expression 'fire' signifies the cause of the loss and in order to determine whether in a particular case the loss is caused by fire, the following rules generally apply:-
a) There must be an actual fire; hence mere heating or fermentation will not be sufficient to render the insurers liable for loss occasioned thereby.
b) There must be something on fire which ought not to have been on fire.
c) There must be something in the nature of an accident, but a fire occasioned by the wilful act of a third person without the consent of the Insured, is to be regarded as accidental for the purpose of this rule.
If these requisites are satisfied, any loss attributable to the fire, whether by actual burning or otherwise, is within the contract.
34. The object of the contract is to protect the Insured against loss occasioned by fire. The fire must be accidental. The dictionary meaning of the expression 'accidental' is a 'happening occurring unexpectedly or by chance'. Consequently, damage from a deliberately set fire will not be covered. To carry out the investigation, therefore, beyond the cause of the loss and to cast upon the Insured the burden of establishing that the cause of the fire itself was covered by his contract, would largely defeat this object.
35. The cause of fire, however, becomes material where the circumstances of the case are open to suspicion, and seem to indicate that it would be contrary to the principle of good faith (doctrine of uberrima fides) inherent in the contract to permit the Insured to recover. Accordingly, the cause of fire becomes material in cases where the fire is occasioned not by negligence but by the wilful act of Insured himself or of someone acting with his privity or consent. In such a case, his conduct, coupled with the making of a claim, is a fraud upon the insurers and he cannot enforce his claim against them. (See: The Law Relating to Fire Insurance by A.W. Baker Welford and W.W. Otter- Barry Fourth Edition).
36. This Court in New India Assurance Company Limited and Others vs. Mudit Roadways, (2024) 3 SCC 193 has held, 'the precise cause of a fire, whether attributed to a short-circuit or any alternative factor, remains immaterial, provided the claimant is Dismissed Page 7 of 10 Appeal Nos.: Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Date of FA/2024/592 Vs. Pronouncement:
Guddi Kindo & Ors. 27/11/2025 not the instigator of the fire'. The said judgment categorically holds that the precise cause of fire is immaterial provided the Insured is not the instigator of the fire. This judgment underscores the importance of insurers' duty to act in good faith and honour its commitment to the Insured."
37. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that once it is established that the loss is due to fire and there is no allegation/finding of fraud or that the Insured is the instigator of the fire, the cause of fire is immaterial and it will have to be assumed and presumed that the fire is accidental and falls within the ambit and scope of fire policy." In view of the above case law of the Hon'ble Apex Court the precise cause of a fire remains immaterial, if the claimant is not the instigator of the fire. In the facts of the instant case also the Forensic Conclusions in the Fire Forensic Report is that the fire did not occur due to electrical short circuit, it would have occurred/ accelerated on an account of human intervention. It does not prove that the respondent No.1/ complainant willfully instigated the fire. Otherwise also, as discussed above, there does not appear any beneficial reason/ motive of willful instigation of fire by the respondent No.1/ complainant.
13. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite party Nos.2 & 3 has placed reliance upon judgement of Hon'ble National Commission in Roland Exports Vs. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., CC No. 218 of 2014, pronounced on 09.05.2025. In that case, Roland Exports filed a claim after a fire at their godown which allegedly destroyed 280 metric tonnes of polyester fiber. The insurer, appointed three independent agencies to investigate the incident, including a forensic lab. The investigation revealed several irregularities. Forensic Lab confirmed the presence of kerosene residues and signs of deliberate ignition (arson), whereas surveyor noted discrepancies in stock records, finding them physically implausible for the space available and suggesting they were fabricated and the preliminary surveyor reported a lack of cooperation from Roland Exports during the investigation. Hon'ble Dismissed Page 8 of 10 Appeal Nos.: Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Date of FA/2024/592 Vs. Pronouncement:
Guddi Kindo & Ors. 27/11/2025 National Commission upheld the insurer's decision, ruling that the repudiation was justified within the scope of the policy terms.
14. In that case in godown of polyester fiber kerosene residues and signs of deliberate ignition (arson) was found by the forensic lab, preliminary surveyor reported lack of cooperation from the insured and final surveyor reported discrepancies in the stock record. But in the facts of the present case in the collected sample Nos.01 & 03 the forensic lab found presence of accelerant material residue hydrocarbons, which were traces of accelerant fuel (Diesel). As per case of the respondent No.1/ complainant the tractor was being used for threshing paddy and during the break time the incident of fire occurred. Obviously, there must be a significant quantity of diesel (fuel) fuel tank of the tractor being used in threshing paddy and possibility of diesel spreading in or after the fire incident cannot be easily ruled out, whereas in the Roland Exports (supra) in a godown of polyester fiber residues of kerosene was found in forensic examination.
15. It is simply opined that insured in non-cooperative to provide the necessary requirements, even after several reminders, but it is not clarified which necessary requirements were not provided, whereas the detailed report of the Forensic Agencies, samples collected with photographs, statement of witnesses recorded and photographs supplied to the agency itself speak a lot regarding co-operation extended by the respondent No.1/ complainant. Nor it is a case of discrepancies in the stock records. Therefore, we are of the view that principle laid down in Roland Exports (supra)'s judgement, having being different set of facts, is not applicable in the facts of the present case and the appellants / opposite party Nos.2 & 3 insurer cannot get any benefit from the above case law in support its arguments.
Dismissed Page 9 of 10
Appeal Nos.: Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Date of
FA/2024/592 Vs. Pronouncement:
Guddi Kindo & Ors. 27/11/2025
16. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the considered view that the appellants/ opposite party Nos.2 & 3 failed to prove with preponderation of probabilities the act of or the possibility of willful instigation of fire by the respondent No.1/ complainant or his possible motive in doing so. Therefore, in our considered view learned District Commission has not committed any error while holding the appellants/ opposite party Nos.2 & 3 insure liable for payment of IDV of the of the insured tractor, suffered total loss in fire incident and in absolving the Dealer respondent No.2/ opposite party No.1 and the Financier respondent No.3/ opposite party No.4 of the vehicle from any liability of payment of compensation to the respondent No.1/ complainant.
17. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in this appeal, hence the same is dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Pramod Kumar Varma)
President Member
/11/2025 /11/2025
Pronounced on: 27th November 2025
Dismissed Page 10 of 10