Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant purchased second hand car SKODA SUPERB bearing registration no.DL 8C NA 0475. It is stated that RC got transferred in the name of complainant and agent of OPs came to the premises of complainant and took the photographs and filled application/documents and insurance of the car was done having policy no. OG-13-9906-1801-00022043 for the period 26.11.2012 to 25.11.2013 and IDV is Rs.10,82,511/-.
2. It is stated that on 07.04.2013, the son of complainant Sh. Dinesh Kumar and his friend Lal Singh went to Gummenhera, Delhi for some personal work and while returning complainant’s son went to the house of his sister at Rawta, Delhi and only Lal Singh was coming back at his home Auchandi Delhi. It is further stated that in night of 07.04.2013 the car was completely burnt near village Gummenhera, Najafgarh Road, Delhi due to short circuit and incident was immediately informed to police department, fire brigade and insurance company. It is stated that the police department and fire brigade department given its report.
3. It is stated that after mis happening complainant approached OPs for claim of total loss several times but no proper response given to complainant. It is further stated that complainant had to suffer from mental agony, harassment which cannot be compensated and OPs failed to perform their duties, therefore, there is clear deficiency of service.
4. The complainant is seeking release of genuine claim of the burnt car, compensation, Rs.3,00,000/- for delay, harassment and sufferings, Rs.25,000/- for litigation charges and any other order which this Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper.
5. OP filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objection that present complaint is frivolous, far fetched and an abuse of process of hon’ble forum and based on mis leading and false allegations. It is stated that no cause of action arose in favor of complainant, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that complainant has deliberately and mischievously withheld material facts and has instead sought to institute before this Hon’ble forum manifests baseless and concocted tale is an attempt to mislead the hon’ble forum therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. It is stated that complainant has deliberately concealded that respondent after burning of vehicle had appointed an independent investigator forensic team to examine the reason of abrupt burning of the vehicle. It is further stated that as per the report given by forensic team there were found traces of kerosene and the person namely Mr. Lal Singh allegedly driving the vehicle in question was also found involved in one of the claim obtained from HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co., wherein vehicle got burnt on 10.12.2012. It is further stated that the person namely Lal Singh was/is a dealer of old vehicles and was/is in habit of getting frivolous claim from the insurance companies. It is stated that complainant has also obtained a claim from insurance company where there was a similar situation and the vehicle was also burnt by fire, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. It is stated that complainant did not cooperate when asked to produce the person namely Lal Singh who was allegedly driving the vehicle when it was burnt. It is further stated that complainant with ill intention has not cooperated with investigation team for investing the cause of fire. It is stated that the independent investigating agency had found kerosene which proves beyond doubt that the vehicle was burnt using kerosene and a story was cooked up that vehicle got burnt due to short circuit and thereafter claim was lodged with OPs. It  is stated that the facts reveals the whole plot bringing the real colour of the complainant who wants to get a fraudulent claim from the OPs. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that complainant has purposely built up the story to get a claim from OPs and in habit of destroying the vehicle and getting false and frivolous claim from the insurance company. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated the contents of the complaint. Complainant stated that she is entitled for all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
10. Complainant filed evidence by way of her affidavit. In the affidavit all the contents of complaint are reiterated. The complainant also filed affidavit of Lal Singh who stated the facts with regard to burning of car on 07.04.2013 and information given to police department, fire brigade and insurance  company.
11. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Dushyant K Meena Sr. Executive Legal. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP relied on copy of investigation report Annexure RW1/1, copy of letter written to complainant Annexure RW1/2 and copy of insurance policy Annexure RW1/3.
12. OP also filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Ankit Sr. Executive Legal who reiterated the  contents of WS. In his affidavit in addition to other documents copy of survey report  is Ex.RW1/4.
13. OP also filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal investigator. He proved investigation report Ex. RW1/2 and stated the facts with regard to investigation process and contents of laboratory tests.
14. OP also filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Tarun Aggarwal Surveyor who proved the fact that Lal Singh did not  provide WS and already taken one insurance  claim from HDFC Ergo  GIC Ltd.
15. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as OP.
16. We have heard Sh. D.K Sinha counsel for complainant and Sh. Rajan Mishra counsel for OPs and perused the record.
17. The complainant approached the Commission with a grievance that genuine claim of complainant’s burnt car not reimbursed by the OP. The complainant had purchased second hand SCODA SUPERB Car having  Registration No. DL8CNA075 and same was insured with OP Ins. Co. for the period 26.11.2012 to 25.11.2013. The complainant alleged that  on 07.04.2013 in the night unfortunately the car was burnt due to short circuit and the driver of the car was Sh. Lal Singh friend of her son Sh. Dineh Kumar. The complainant filed on record the DD entry no. 45A lodged with local Police with regard to fire and also filed copy of fire report dated 16.04.2013. However, no documentary proof filed on record establish that the fire took place due to short circuit. According to OP the complainant did not cooperate when Independent Investigator Forensic Team was examining the burning vehicle. The Lal Singh alleged driver did not make himself available for statement.
18. The OP filed the investigation report RW1/1. We have gone through the report dated 24.05.2013. The report revealed that Sh. Dinesh Rana son of the complainant and Sh. Lal Singh driver deals in old car business. Sh. Lal Singh has taken one insurance claim of Ford Icon Car due to total loss of fire. The Forensic Lab Report dated 23.04.2013 filed on record mentioned that ‘Kerosene’ is found in the both test of parcel Ex.P1 (debris from dash board, front seat, back seat, no incendiaries found from parcel Ex.P-2 (debris from bonnet). The expert scientific official is Sh. Pankaj Jaiswal found that ‘Kerosene’ is used to set car on fire placing an accident somewhere deliberately set car on fire by using ‘Kerosene’ which is inflammable liquid. The OP filed affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Jaiswal to corroborate and prove this report. The OP filed affidavit of Sh. Tarun surveyor who corroborate the fact that Sh. Lal Singh already taken one insurance claim due to loss of fire. It is pertinent to mention here that although complainant filed affidavit of Sh. Lal Singh but the facts established by OP with regard to fire incident and the Scientific Forensic Report proved on record are remained unchallenged. We are of the considered opinion that the report proved on record of Sh. Pankaj Jaiswal Forensic Expert cannot be brushed aside in these circumstances where there is a  specific  finding of presence of ‘Kerosene’ after conducting chemical test. The opinion remained unrebutted and established on record that the fire incident could have result due to deliberate act of Sh. Lal Singh who as per surveyor report deals in old car business.
19. On the basis of above observation and discussion complainant failed to prove the genuineness of the claim and OP justified in rejecting/non reimbursement of the claim   of the complainant. Hence present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
20. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  02.04.2024.

      SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER