(1.) The complainant purchased one Hindustan Ambassador Deluxe Sedan car in June, 1989 for a sum of Rs.1,18,694/- manufactured by first opposite party through its dealer i. e. fourth opposite party i. e. Auto Pradeep, Hyderabad, and took a comprehensive insurance policy on 6.6.1989 for Rs.1,20,000/- with the second opposite party, and the third opposite party is the General Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Within a month of supply, even before the permanent registration was allotted to the car, the axle broke down and on a representation made by the complainant, the first opposite party replaced the car with a new one and the second opposite party endorsed the insurance coverage to the new replaced vehicle. Even before the expiry of period of third free service on 11.2.1990 at 5.45 p. m. while the vehicle was being taken out from the garage at the complainant's house as soon as an ignition key was applied, the vehicle caught fire preceded by an explosion. Most of the parts of the Engine were splattered inside the bonnet and the fire was put out by throwing sand by the workers with great difficulty and luckily the complainant and his family members are saved. Immediately the complainant lodged a claim with the second opposite party and also intimated the fourth opposite party i. e. Auto Pradeep the dealer, and the dealer Auto Pradeep estimated the repairs approximately at Rs.50,000/- and the vehicle was towed to the workshop of the fourth opposite party on 27.2.1990 and the custody of the car was handed over to the fourth opposite party. Thereafter the complainant wrote to the manufacturer through the fourth opposite party stating that due to low quality, substandard and defective machinery used in the manufacture of the car and due to fault, defect, deficiency, imperfection and shortcoming and the poor quality in manufacture, the vehicle caught fire preceded by explosion and asked the first opposite party requesting to deliver a new car, as the vehicle was used little over 300 kms. The complainant further informed that he is a practising Advocate and that due to lack of conveyance he has been spending Rs.3,000/- per month towards conveyance. But the first opposite party initially informed the complainant that the fire is the result of negligence on the part of the owner/driver. Inspite of the fourth opposite party pointing out that fire broke out not due to any negligence on the part of the complainant and asked the 1st opposite party to review its decision in replacing the vehicle with a new one and the first opposite party on 1.5.1990 changing its earlier stand informed the complainant that it is an accidental fire and advised the complainant to settle the claim with the-Insurance Company and by letter dated 11.5.1990 refused to replace the vehicle.
(2.) Alleging that on account of the defect in the material, workmanship used in the manufacture of the car, the fire broke out due to poor quality of manufacture amounting to deficiency, imperfection and shortcoming, the above complaint was filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties to refund the price or replace the car with a new one, to refund the full value of insurance policy and for payment of compensation of Rs.3,000/- per month from February, 1990 till payment.
(3.) Alongwith the complaint, eight Annexures were filed. Annexure-I being the premium receipt, Annexures-II and III are the insurance policies covering the risk from 4.7.1989 to 3.7.1990 for Rs.1,20,000/-, Annexure-IV is the claim preferred by the complainant to the Insurance Company, Annexure-V being the damage assessed by Auto Pradeep i. e. fourth opposite party, Annexures-VI and VII are the letters written by the complainant to the first opposite party seeking replacement of car and Annexure-VIII dated 15.5.1990 is a letter from the first opposite party to the complainant rejecting the claim of the complainant for replacement of car with a new one and asking him to settle the matter with the Insurance Company as it is purely an accidental fire.