State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sapna Rani vs Icici Lombard, General Insurance ... on 27 November, 2025
FA/536/2023 SAPNA RANI VS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DOD:27.11.2025
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 10.10.2023
Date of Hearing: 28.10.2025
Date of Decision: 27.11.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO. -536/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
MRS. SAPNA RANI,
W/O JITENDER SINGH PAHAL,
R/O H.NO. A-165, RAJ PARK SULTANPURI,
DELHI
(Through: Mr. Anuj, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
1 FLOOR, UNIT-101, STATION BOX,
AT METRO STATION, DILSHAD GARDEN
NEW DELHI 110095 NEW
BRANCH OFFICE AT:
FOURTH PARSAVNATH CAPITAL TOWER,
BHAI VEER SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI 110001
(Through: Mr. Paramjeet Singh, Advocate)
...Respondent
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 8
FA/536/2023 SAPNA RANI VS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DOD:27.11.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. Anuj, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Paramjeet Singh, counsel for the Respondent.
PER:HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a Maruti Baleno Delta Petrol Petrol car from the No. 3 which was duly insured by the Opposite Party, No. 1. On 15.06.2019, Complainant along with her husband, visited the house of the relative at Nangloi, Delhi. The said vehicle was parked on the road side. It is her case that when they entered the house of the relative then someone told them that the said car had caught fire-It is her case that due to the fire incident, front side of the said vehicle was burning and the engine of the said vehicle was completed damaged. After that the Complainant reported the fire incident to the Police and Opposite Parties for seeking the compensation of the damaged vehicle. It is her case that Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 inspected the said vehicle and vide an email dated 26.06.2019, Opposite Party No. 1 rejected the claim on the ground that "The damage to the vehicle was due to the electrical failure which does not fall under the purview of insurance".
Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 were putting the blame to each other with malafide intentions to ignore their legal liability towards the damages caused to the Complainant. On 19.08.2019, Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but they did not respond. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pass the claim of the Complainant .Complainant has also prayed for Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment along with 18 % interest and Rs. 50,000/- on account of litigation DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 8 FA/536/2023 SAPNA RANI VS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DOD:27.11.2025
2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on its part. It is stated that the source of fire seemed to be an internal source that is at the wiring of the Speakers present in the trunk. The insured Vehicle was fitted with external fitments like audio systems, speakers etc. which were installed in the vehicle from a local garage. It is stated that there was local wirings found in the vehicle. It is stated that it was concluded by the investigator that there was a short circuit at battery due to externally fitted amplifier and speaker. Therefore, it is clear that there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite No. 1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.
4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the e averments' made in the complaint The Complainant has also relied upon the expert opinion dated 21.09.2022 given by Brilliant Forensic Investigation Pvt. Ltd.
5. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Deepak Bansal, Manager Legal, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 12.09.2023 whereby it held as under:
"6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that her vehicle caught fire as a result thereof damage was caused to the vehicle. It is her case that the vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 1 has wrongly rejected the claim. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 8 FA/536/2023 SAPNA RANI VS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DOD:27.11.2025 Party No. 1 is that the vehicle caught fire as there was some local fitting/installation of amplifier speakers etc. in the car. It is the case of Opposite Party No. 1 that the wiring was also not proper and the installation of the said speaker/amplifier etc. was done by some local garage. It is the case of Opposite Party No. 1 that thus there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and for this ITES RRD reason the claim was rejected. To prove this stand the Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shr Deepak Bansal, wherein he has supported the version of the Opposite Party No. 1 in this regard.
7. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that it had rejected the claim as there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The relevant clause of the policy is reproduced as under "The Company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of:-
(a) Consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failures or breakages
8. The Opposite Party No. 1 has not led any scientific evidence that the fire took place due to the electrical short in the battery because of the local installation of the amplifier speaker etc. But the Opposite Party No. 1 did not lead any cogent evidence in this regard. On the other hand, the reliance has been placed upon the expert opinion 31.09.2022 given by Brilliant Forensic Investigation Pvt. Ltd. This opinion has not been challenged by the Opposite Party No. 1. The relevant part of the said opinion is reproduced as under:
Based on a thorough and in-depth inspection of the burnt car, bearing registration no. DL-11-CB-3769, followed by search identification, collection, and analysis of physical, documentary, an oral evidence collected from the incident site; it is concluded that the fire in the said car reported to have occurred on 15th June 2019 at Nangloi No. 3.
1. Was not on an account of short circuit in the wires of Baleno car bearing Registration No. DL-11-CB-3769.
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 8 FA/536/2023 SAPNA RANI VS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DOD:27.11.2025
2. Was not on an account of mechanical, combustion or electrical failures of any component installed in the engine compartment of Baleno car bearing Registration No. DL-11-
CB-3769.
3. Was on account of external burning substances which were burning below the tip of the bonnet."
9. Further, the email dated 26.06.2019 sent by Shri Sarang Bansal of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. to the Complainant-As per the said report the fire was due to some external factor only. The relevant part of the said mail is reproduced as under:-
"Thus, in our considered opinion, based on the available material, we conclude that the cause of fire was not due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle on malfunction of any part but due to some external factor only."
10. Therefore, in view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that Opposite Party No. 1 has failed to prove its case and it is therefore concluded that it has wrongly rejected the claim of the Complainant.
11. The Complainant has prayed for directing the Opposite Parties to compensate her regarding the loss caused to the vehicle due to fire. However, the Complainant has not quantified the amount of loss nor led any evidence, in thisregard as to how much loss was caused to the vehicle. It is her case that front 2 portion of the car was burnt and engine was completely burnt. She has not led any evidence that the engine of the car was completely burnt nor the Complainant has filed any repair estimate etc. The Complainant has filed photographs of the burnt vehicle which shows that some front portion of the vehicle has been burnt except that everything else appears to be okay. Hence, in view of the said facts and circumstances, and circumstances, compensation of Rs. 60,000/- is granted to the Complainant on account of loss to the vehicle which shall be paid by the Opposite Party No.-1 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No. 1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/ DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 8 FA/536/2023 SAPNA RANI VS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DOD:27.11.2025 to the Complainant on account mental harassment and litigation expenses es along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till recovery."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has submitted that the vehicle of the Appellant is parked in the parking since 2019 in the same damaged condition and for which the appellant is already bearing Rs. 3000/- per month since, 2019 as the vehicle is completely damaged and cannot be moved. Hence, the compensation amount as directed to be paid by the District Commission is liable to be enhanced as the District Commission wrongly didn't allow the first prayer of the Appellant despite observing that the Opposite Party/Respondent wrongly rejected the claim of the Appellant/Complainant. Secondly, it is submitted that the District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the vehicle of the Appellant was completely damaged due to the fire accident and Maruti Suzuki had forwarded the claim of total loss of the vehicle to the respondent meaning thereby that the said vehicle was not in the condition of repairs and whole amount of the said vehicle was to be paid to the Appellant or a new car (same car) was to be handed over to her as per insurance. Thirdly, it is submitted that the said vehicle is still parked in the same condition with the appellant. It is further submitted that the claim was duly forwarded by the Maruti Suzuki to the Insurance company/respondent for which the insurance company/respondent is liable to pass the said claim accordingly as per current price of the said vehicle. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant has prayed that the present appeal be allowed.
4. The Respondent has filed the reply to the present appeal and has stated therein that the District Commission has overlooked the fundamental principle that a claim must be supported by credible evidence to warrant DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 8 FA/536/2023 SAPNA RANI VS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DOD:27.11.2025 compensation. By awarding an arbitrary amount without requiring the appellant to discharge the burden of proof, the District Commission has committed a grave error in law and fact. Secondly, it is submitted that the District Commission has erred in placing undue reliance on the investigation report prepared by BFI Pvt. Ltd. which is speculative and lacks evidentiary support. The BFI report fails to provide a clear and logical explanation for the fire's cause, vaguely attributing it to garbage beneath the vehicle without any evidence of how the garbage might have ignited. This conclusion is not only implausible but also overlooks critical factors, such as the internal wiring issues identified in the vehicle. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned order, being devoid of any evidentiary foundation, is unsustainable and liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
5. The parties have filed their brief written arguments and the same have been given due consideration.
6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the parties.
7. The only question that falls for our consideration is whether the Appellant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ?
8. A perusal of the record suggests that the District Commission has passed the order directing the Respondents to pay an amount of 60,000 for the loss occurred to the Appellant and an amount of 25,000 as litigation cost with an interest of 6% Ρ.Α. The Appellant has prayed for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the vehicle is standing in damaged condition in the parking since 2019, at a parking expense of Rs.3,000/- per month. However, a perusal of the record shows that the Appellant has not adduced any parking receipts or other documentary proof to show that such an expense is being incurred by the Appellant. Furthermore, the Appellant DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 8 FA/536/2023 SAPNA RANI VS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DOD:27.11.2025 has also failed to produce any bills, reports or documents that could objectively assess the quantum of loss claimed. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent proof to quantify the loss, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the District Commission is just in the given circumstances. No other ground is carved out for enhancement of compensation. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
10. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
11. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
27.11.2025 L.R.-G.P.K DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 8