TATA MOTORS LIMITED Vs. NITIN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of the same impugned order dtd. 28/11/2022 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in CC/200/2019. The complainant is the respondent No.1 in all the appeals on whose behalf Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel has appeared and has urged that so far as the complainant is concerned he is entitled to receive the fruits of the decree as the loss suffered by him is established as the vehicle was comprehensively insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the probability of a manufacturing defect cannot be ruled out. She however very fairly submits that so far as M/s. Tata Motors Insurance Broking and Advisory Services Ltd. is concerned, who was arrayed as the opposite party No.2 in the original complaint, and is the appellant in FA/84/2023 before this Commission, may not be liable for any such loss and therefore she states that it is left to the Commission to draw an appropriate conclusion in that regard.

(2.) Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, learned counsel has appeared for M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited in all the three appeals and is the counsel for the appellant in FA/211/2023. His contention is that the loss was surveyed by the spot surveyor on 21/11/2018, just the next day of the accident, who tendered a report on 23/3/2019. The final surveyor M/s. M. Kumar & Company appointed by the Insurance Company conducted their survey and also got the incident examined by a Motor Vehicles expert, Mr. Satish Kumar, who tendered a report on 24/4/2019 and the final surveyor ultimately tendered his report on 19/2/2020, which all establish that the vehicle was suffering from a manufacturing defect. He urged that the vehicle was just 20 days old and was a brand new vehicle. The manner in which the fire ignited, engulfing the vehicle into flames according to the survey report and the evidence on record, establishes that the fire ignited as soon as the ignition key was put on causing a short circuit, that resulted in a spark thereby causing the fire. He therefore contends that it was a clear manufacturing defect and therefore the entire liability is of the manufacturer, if any.

(3.) He then submits that even otherwise the Insurance Company was not liable to make any payment in terms of the Commercial Vehicles Package Policy, where clause 2 states as under:-