ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE Vs. NIKHIL SYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the impugned order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh ('the State Commission', for short) in First Appeal No.180 of 2011 whereby the State Commission has upset the finding returned by the District Forum vide its order dated 16.06.2011 in Consumer Complaint No.345/2010 by which the District Forum had non suited the claim of the complainant/respondent herein and dismissed his complaint filed against the OPs, who are the petitioners. Vide its impugned order, the State Commission has granted the following relief to the respondent/complainant:-

(2.) The factual matrix relevant for the disposal of this revision petition may be stated thus. The respondent/complainant got his Honda Civic Car bearing registration No.HR-68-B(T) 0003 insured with the petitioners/OPs for the period from 22.08.2008 to 21.08.2009. As per the allegation, the said vehicle caught fire during the early hours of 19.02.2009 when the vehicle was parked outside the residence of the complainant. The vehicle got damaged because of the fire. A DDR bearing No.14 dated 19.02.2009 was lodged with the local police station and an insurance claim for reimbursement was filed with the petitioner insurance company. The insurance company failed to decide the claim in six months which led the complainant/respondent serve a legal notice upon it but without any avail. Consequently, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the insurance company, the respondent/complainant knocked the door of the District Forum by filing a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(3.) On notice, the insurance company resisted the complaint by filing a written statement. It was stated by the insurance company that it had insured vehicle with registration no.HR-68-B-0003 and not the car bearing registration no.HR-68-B(T) 0003. Besides this, it was stated that the claim of the respondent had been rightly repudiated on the ground that the car was burnt purposely which according to the insurance company was evident from the Forensic Report dated 14.07.2009 of the Directorate of Forensic Science, Govt. of Gujarat to whom the sealed sample of the burnt material from the car in question had been sent for analysis and report. It was the contention of the insurance company that the loss caused was attributable to burning of the car by sprinkling of petroleum product and that there was no accidental fire. Thus, it was pointed out that it was a case of arson which was not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP insurance company prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The parties led the evidence in support of their respective claims. After hearing the parties and going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum held that the car burnt was not insured with the OP insurance company vide the policy in question and it was further held that the loss was not covered under the terms of the policy. Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent carried the matter before the State Commission by filing an appeal against this order. As stated above, the State Commission accepted the appeal and reversed the order of the District Forum and granted relief in terms of the impugned order reproduced above.