The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai bench, has ruled in favor of the complainant, Mahesh Dashrath Gaikwad, in a case against Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainant’s vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero Sport, was insured with the company under a policy valid from May 13, 2016, to May 12, 2017. On March 25, 2017, the vehicle was detained by the police during a municipal corporation meeting, and it caught fire due to an electric short circuit on the night of March 28, 2017, while in police custody.
The insurer repudiated the claim, stating that the vehicle was used for unlawful purposes on the date of the incident. However, the commission observed that there was no evidence to support this claim, and the police authorities and fire brigade officials confirmed that the fire occurred due to an electric short circuit and not due to the complainant’s negligence.
The commission addressed three key issues: whether the complainant was a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whether the complaint was within the limitation period, and whether there was a deficiency of service by the insurer. The commission held that the complainant was a consumer, as there was no evidence to suggest that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes. The complaint was also found to be within the limitation period, as it was filed within five months of the cause of action.
Regarding the deficiency of service, the commission examined the evidence and found that the fire occurred due to an electric short circuit, and there was no nexus between the fire accident and any unlawful act. The commission relied on official records, which carry a presumption of correctness, and observed that the surveyor’s report was not binding. The insurer was held liable for deficiency in service for failure to indemnify the complainant despite payment of full premium and the loss being covered under the policy.
The commission allowed the complaint, ordering the insurer to pay the insured declared value of Rs. 24,84,250, Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for mental agony, and Rs. 50,000 as litigation costs. The case highlights the importance of insurers carefully examining the evidence and not repudiating claims without sufficient grounds. It also underscores the role of consumer commissions in protecting the rights of consumers and ensuring that insurers provide fair and reasonable services.