Suspicion cannot replace conclusive proof in insurance claims regarding unauthorized modifications.

1. Vide the present appeal, the Appellant impugns the order dated 5.2.2018, passed in CC - 1447/2014 titled Kalpana Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., by the District Forum, North - West, Delhi.
Brief facts of the case as per the District Forum record are:
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under S.12 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a second Hand Car, Skoda, bearing registration No. DL - 8CNA - 1729 and after purchase of the car, the registration certificate was transferred in the name of the complainant on 24.04.2008. The complainant further alleged that after purchase the car, the agent of OP came to the premises of the complainant and took the photographs and filled the application / documents and insured the car and the latest insurance policy number with OP is 361000/31/13/6100000279 and the policy period was from 16.4.2013 to 15.4.2014 and the IDV of the car is Rs. 2,50,007. On 7.4.2014, the car was completely burnt near Bentex Community Hall, Naraina Road, Delhi while driving the car, due to short - circuit and the complainant immediately informed the police department, Fire - Brigade and OP. The complainant further alleged that the police department and Delhi Fire Service gave the report also and after the mis - happening, the complainant approached OP for claim of the total loss of the car and the complainant approached OP several times but there is no response given by OP and the OP is guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency n service.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to release the genuine claim of the burnt car along with interest for delay as well as compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 for causing mental torture and harassment and also sought cost of litigation.

2. After perusing the record, the District Forum vide its order dated 5.2.2018 allowed the Complaint of the Respondent holding as under:
6.This Forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as OP in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The documents and evidence of the parties shows that the complainant's car was burnt on 7.4.2014. The Fire Department in its report dated 8.5.2014 has stated that information / call of fire was received on 7.4.2014 at 9.30 a.m. The report further shows that approx. distance was 3 KMs and the fire engine officers along with fire tender arrived at the scene of the fire at 9.40 a.m. and they left the fire scene at 10.30 a.m. In the said report, it is not mentioned that CNG Kit was installed / affixed in the car. No dispute can be attributed to this report. The surveyor appointed by the OP have given only presumption of affixation of CNG Kit in the car. The surveyor have not categorically mentioned in the report that the fire in the car was caused due to CNG Kit. They have not categorically stated in the report that CNG Kit was found installed in the car. Merely on the basis of assumption it cannot be said that fire in the car has occurred due to CNG Kit. Thus, it seems that OP has wrongfully repudiated the claim. Thus, OP is held guilty of deficiency in service.
7. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct the OP to:
(i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,50,007 being the IDV of the car of the complainant. (ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 40,000 as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered. (iii) To pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000 as cost of litigation.
8. The above amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from th