S.A. Kader, President - This is a complaint under section 12 read with section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The complainant had insured his lorry bearing registration No. TN-55-1580 with the opposite parties on the insured’s estimated value of Rs. 1,75,000/- The said lorry originally bore registration No. KEQ 1472 and was re-registered in Tamil Nadu on 26-9-1990. On 30-12-1990 at 3 a.m. near Idayamparai in Pudikoottai District, the vehicle caught fire as a result of electric short circuit causing extensive damage to the lorry. The First Information Report was given by the driver. The officials of the opposite parties inspected the lorry and assessed the damages, but the claim was not settled till date. There was thus deficiency of service. The complainant has claimed insurance amount of Rs. 1,75,000/-, loss of earning at Rs. 1,25,000/-, interest payable to the financier at Rs. 23,100/-, travelling expenses Rs. 10,000/-, and mental strain, Rs. 15,000/- in all Rs. 3,49,1001-.

3. The claim is resisted by the opposite party and various contentions are raised which shall be dealt with hereinafter.

4. The points that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether there was deficiency of service?

(ii) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the complainant entitled?

5. Point No.1: It is not in dispute that the lorry in question has been seriously damaged due to fire at about 3 a.m. on 30-12-1990. It has been insured with the opposite party and Exhibit Al is the policy of Insurance, Exhibit A2 is the letter sent by the complainant to the Senior Divisional Manager of the opposite party. Exhibit A3 is the Lawyer’s Notice. Exhibit A4 is the xerox copies of the drivers licence and registration certificate. Exhibit A5 is the First Information Report. According to the complainant as deposed by the driver as P.W. 2 the accident was due to short circuit of the electric circuit of the electric connection. The opposite parties are skeptical about this version and they suspect that this is not a case of accident, but a manmade calamity intended to hoodwink the insurer and claim compensation. This skepticism of opposite parties is based on the following facts and circumstances. At the time of the spot inspection made by the surveyor of the insurance company the engine found in the vehicle bore the No. ALF 75797 while as per the registration certificate the engine No. is ALEF 45945. But when the vehicle was inspected by another surveyor at the workshop on 18-2-1991 the vehicle had the original engine No. ALEF 45945. The vehicle had two batteries but both of them were not available, not even the burnt remains of the batteries. According to the F.I.R. the diesel tank exploded with loud noise while the surveyor had found that the diesel tank was intact and had suffered only a dent and the cap was missing. It is also pointed out that there was no time of wooden pellets, cabin rear planks, glass rubber beadings. In view of the above circumstances, the opposite parties would suggest that the lorry has been set fire to intentional1y with a view to claiming the issuance amount. But they have not stated so in specific terms in their counter. But suspicions and surmises cannot supplant proof. In the absence of any evidence to show that this is a deliberate act of sabotage on the part of the complainant, it is not possible to hold that this was a man-made occurrence. It may also be pointed out that the Insurance Company appointed a private investigator M/s. Devasena Security and Detective Bureau, Madurai to investigate into this matter and Exhibit B3 is the report of the investigator which is filed before us at the insistence of the complainant. The investigator has pointed out that the accident was immediately referred to the police and the fire has been extinguished by fire fighting personnel. As regards the missing of batteries, the investigator would rely upon the statement of the driver and the cleaner that they were completely melted by the fire.