ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J.)(Retd.), President- Only question involved in this complaint is, as to who is liable to indemnify the complainant in the facts and circumstances as set "out in the complaint. It is admitted case of the parties that Opposite Party (OP) No.3 is the manufacturer of the Logan Car K7MPS GLS 5 SM AIR BAG Car (Sedan). Its dealer is OP No.2. This Car was admittedly purchased by the complainant on 29.2.2008 from OP No.2 and was insured with OP No.1. Again it is not in dispute that on 3.3.2008 when the complainant was travelling from his New Shimla office to his residence, near Ayurvedic Hospital, Chhotta Shim la, he noticed in the rear view mirror smoke coming out of the Car. He inspected the same and found that the Car had caught fire. With a view to get some water, according to the complainant, he went to nearby Ayurvedic Hospital so that fire could be extinguished but nobody was available there. He claims to have sought the help of passers-by but his efforts went in vain with the result that the entire car was engulfed in fire. Fire Brigade came and extinguished the fire. The entire Car had been burnt. Complaint was also lodged at Police Station, Chhotta Shimla. Vehicle having caught fire is also certified by the Fire Department. In this background, claim was lodged by the appellant with the dealer OP No.2 as well as with the OP No.1. As the Car had been gutted in the fire, same being insured with the OP No.1, therefore the complainant asked the Insurance Company to indemnify him. 2. OP No.1 got the spot survey done from Shri Mohinder K. Sharma and his report is Annexure RA. He opined that since the fire had taken place within 4 days of its purchase, as such it was the outcome of manufacturing defect in the vehicle/its components, like warring (wiring?) harness or fuel pump. Final survey of the vehicle was got done by OP No.1 from Shri Girish Sharma. He recommended the settlement of case on 'total loss basis. But at the same time he also. Final survey of the vehicle was got done by OP No.1 from Shri Girish Sharma. He recommended the settlement of case on 'total loss basis. But at the same time he also. remarked, that as the fire had occurred from rear side and the same was due to manufacturing fault as per the report of of Shri Mohinder Sharma (who had carried out preliminary survey) and also as per investigation report of Shri Kamal Narain, Investigator, the loss had occurred due to its (manufacturer's) fault, so the complainant should recover the amount from the manufacturer, as the Car was purchased on 29.2.2008 and loss occurred on 3.3.2008, he also observed in his report that that he had a telephonic talk with Shri Pranav Bhardwaj, Service Engineer of Mahindra & Mahindra, but he gave no comment on the cause of loss. As the loss occurred within 4 days of issuing the cover note and falls within close proximity so according to Shri Girish Sharma, Surveyor, the matter needs to be got investigated. Per him the liability on total loss basis works au t to Rs.4,68,775/ -, less wreck value. In this can text it may be appropriate to mention that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for Rs.4,94,50 1/-. This position was not disputed again between the parties, and it was insured in the sum of Rs.4,71,000/- as per Annexure R.1, the insurance policy. 3. When claim was not settled, present complaint was filed. It has been seriously contested by OP No.1 on one side, and OP Nos. 2 & 3 on the other. As already observed, according to OP No.1, it was not liable for making payment of any amount, because the complainant has no cause of action against .it. Further according to it, cause of loss is due to fire, and it was the outcome of manufacturing defec1 in the vehicle. Thus liability is that of the manufacturer. Further according to this OP, as pleaded in the written submissions that loss was not caused by the insured peril and the same is not covered under the policy, as such no claim was entertaii1ahle. Alternatively, it is pleaded that without in any manner admitting liability, at best it is liable to pay only Rs.4,68,775/- less wreck value on total loss basis subject to right of subrogation and transfer of the vehicle in its favour, being duly executed. Alternatively, it is pleaded that without in any manner admitting liability, at best it is liable to pay only Rs.4,68,775/- less wreck value on total loss basis subject to right of subrogation and transfer of the vehicle in its favour, being duly executed. With a view to advance its case, Mr. Bhasin learned Counsel for OP No.1 also laid much emphasis on the terms and conditions of Private Car Package Policy Annexure R.1. In terms of clause-1 of Section-I, the Company had undertaken to indemnify the insured (the complainant), against loss or damage to the vehicle insured and/or its accessories whilst thereon, by fire. However, by referring to the opening part of the terms and conditions, Mr. Bhasin submitted that his client would only be liable in respect of accidental loss or damage caused during the period of insurance and according to him, accident has to be given its literal meaning. He also pressed into service Clause 2 of the above Section which deals with exclusions, thus per him, his client is not liable to make any payment in the present case. For ready reference, this Clause 2 is extracted here in below:- The Company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of : (a) consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failures or breakages (b) damage to tyres and tubes unless the vehicle is damaged at the same time in which case the liability of the company shall be limited to 50% of the cost of replacement. (c) Any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs". 4. We are sorry to observe that on one hand, OP No.1 had undertaken to cover the loss caused by fire, how and in what manner exclusion clause above extracted is attracted to the facts of the present case, learned Counsel for OP No.1 was unable to satisfy us. Faced with this situation, Mr. Bhasin tried to make capital out of the affidavit of Mr. Prashant Jadhav, Ex.OPW.3, and the report given by him which is a part of his affidavit. According to his findings, any such conclusion that fire happened due to electric short circuit' or any electrical mal-functioning or any manufacturing defect was absolutely ruled out. Faced with this situation, Mr. Bhasin tried to make capital out of the affidavit of Mr. Prashant Jadhav, Ex.OPW.3, and the report given by him which is a part of his affidavit. According to his findings, any such conclusion that fire happened due to electric short circuit' or any electrical mal-functioning or any manufacturing defect was absolutely ruled out. His further finding is that it could be a possibility that fire started due to some external burning of something kept in the boot or something got stuck to the rear of the car. There was no sign or any evidence to suggest that the cause of fire was due to electrical short circuit or any malfunctioning in any system or any manufacturing deficiency whatsoever. He also relied upon the cross examination of this witness during the course of proceedings. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Mahajan appearing for the manufacturer pointed out that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and further according to him, it is also not the case set out by the complainant, therefore there is no question of any deficiency on the part of his client. He also relied upon the affidavit of Shri Prshant Jadhav, as well as his cross examination and the cross examination of the expert produced by the Insurance Company whose affidavits are also on record. Affidavit of Er. Mohinder K. Sharma, Mechanical and Automobile Engineer is there. He has examined the vehicle and submitted his report, Annexure R.4. We are constrained to observe with reference to this report that there are no acceptable, muchless justifiable reasons given by him while opining that fire in question was the outcome of the manufacturing defect in the vehicle/its components. With a view that his report as an expert should be accepted, he is supposed to have given cogent and acceptable reasons. None can be made out from Annexure RA. As such, no benefit can be derived by the OP No.1, either from Annexure R.4 or from the affidavit of Er. Mohinder K. Sharma. 6. So far affidavit of Shri Girish Sharma who carried out the final survey is concerned, while assessing the loss he has accepted the version given by Er. Mohinder K. Sharma regarding cause of fire. He has not independently applied his mind. Mohinder K. Sharma. 6. So far affidavit of Shri Girish Sharma who carried out the final survey is concerned, while assessing the loss he has accepted the version given by Er. Mohinder K. Sharma regarding cause of fire. He has not independently applied his mind. Therefore, his affidavit and report is not of much significance save and except to the extent of quantuni of loss in case we accept his report. 7. On the other hand, opinion expressed by Shri Prashant Jadhav in his affidavit alongwith his opinion given in his inspection report coupled with his cross examination, according to us, is elaborate and gives sufficient and plausible reasons for fire being not due to short circuit. He is an Engineer working in the manufacturing Plant of OP No.3. Nothing material/substantial could be extracted even in his cross examination on behalf of OP No. I so as to dislodge him, or force us not to accept his report. 8. Since investigation was got done by OP No.1 and the report, of the investigator was referred to on behalf of the said OP during the course of hearing by Mr. Bhasin, therefore we shall now deal with it. This report is Annexure R.3. Report of the Investigator Sh.Kamal Narain, is based on the advice of one Shri P.C. Sharma, N.T.C. holder from Government of India. We straightway reject Annexure R.3. Reason being that he had accepted what Shri P.C. Sharma told him. Adr.1ittedly Sh. P.C. Sharma, had not inspected the vehicle. Further reason to reject the report of Shri P.C. Sharma is that he has only referred to the statement of the complainant Amarjeet Singh Kawatra while giving his report, Annexure R.3/A. He has not bothered to either examine the vehicle or to ascertain its condition. 9. Likewise Mr. Kamal Narain while submitting his affidavit Ex.RW.1jA and report Annexure R.3, has also not cared to examine the vehicle or to have seen the same and rightly so because he is not a technical person. Mr. Girish Sharma is the person who had carried out the final survey. His final survey report is Annexure R.5. He admits having perused the earlier reports of SjShri Kamal Narain and Mohinder K. Sharma. There is nothing on record to suggest in his report about the cause of fire having been assessed by him independently. Mr. Girish Sharma is the person who had carried out the final survey. His final survey report is Annexure R.5. He admits having perused the earlier reports of SjShri Kamal Narain and Mohinder K. Sharma. There is nothing on record to suggest in his report about the cause of fire having been assessed by him independently. All these three person were examined by OP No.1 as witnesses on its behalf. In these circumstances, plea of OP No.1 that this was a case of manufacturing defect needs to be rejected. Ordered accordingly. 10. Mr. Jhingan, learned Counsel for the complainant clarified that his client has given the true picture how the fire incident took place. Whether it constitutes manufacturing defect or not, complainant could not say anything and this could only be explained by an expert. Per him his client has been dragged to litigation by the OPs in general and OP No.1 as an insurer in particular. 11. A common ground was urged by S/Shri Deepak Bhasin, Vishal Panwar and Rahul Mahajan, Advocates that the complaint is over-valued so as to bring it within the jurisdiction of this Commission. While advancing this line of argument, all of them submitted that Car in question was insured with OP No.1 in the sum of Rs.4,71,000/-. With a view to inflate the claim complainant besides claiming this amount, he asked for Rs.12,00,000/ - on account of .mental and physical harassment, and Rs.5,00,000 j - for loss of business and business opportunity, besides Rs.12, 000 j - towards the cost of litigation. According to them, practice of over-valuing the claims has been repeatedly deprecated by the Courts and thus they prayed for return of the complaint to complainant for being presented to the Fora having jurisdiction in the matter. They also highlighted that there is no evidence worth the name produced by the complainant to support any of these claims, therefore they prayed for upholding this plea. There appears to be substance in this submission of the learned Counsel for the OPs.One of the ways to get rid of this complaint by us was, to have returned it to the complainant, with the direction to present the same before appropriate Forum for disposal in accordance with law. However we are not doing so, because the proceedings were complete and we have finally heard the matter. However we are not doing so, because the proceedings were complete and we have finally heard the matter. In this context it may be appropriate to mention that the complainant has been inconvenienced because of actions of OPs in general and OP NO.1 in particular who did not settle the claim within a reasonable time and thus forcing litigation upon him. 12. We specifically, called upon Mr. Deepak Bhasin, learned Counsel for the OP No.1 that before undertaking insurance vide Annexure R. 1, whether provisions of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2002 were complied with on behalf of his client. Reason for this query was, that under law, it is the duty of the person who undertakes the insurance to explain all the merits demerits including what risks are covered and what are excluded and what was best in the interest of the person seeking insurance. 13. Reply of Mr. Bhasin was that firstly this is not the case set out in the complaint; and secondly it is to be presumed that needful had been done. Above all question of any explanation being given by his client would only arise, when it gets a chance only after this plea was set out in the complaint. We are not satisfied with this stand on behalf of OP No.1. Reason being that when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it is the duty of the party concerned to show by placing acceptable material that needful had in fact been done in the said manner, and that requirement of law was met with. These Regulations are statutory in character having been framed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, in exercise of powers vested in it under Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 and Insurance Act, 1938. We have no hesitation in observing in this case, that the agent of the OP No.1 who undertook insurance has followed these Regulations of 2002 more in their breach, than compliance by treating them as non-est on the statute book. 14. During the pendency of the complaint on 25.5.2009, following order was passed:- "25.5.2009 : Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate, For the complainant. Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate for the OP No.1. . Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate vice counsel for OP No.2. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for OP NO.3. 14. During the pendency of the complaint on 25.5.2009, following order was passed:- "25.5.2009 : Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate, For the complainant. Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate for the OP No.1. . Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate vice counsel for OP No.2. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for OP NO.3. Admitted facts giving rise to this complaint are, that the complainant purchased a brand new Mahindra Logan Car from OP No.2 who is the authorized dealer of its manufacturer, i.e. of OP No.3. At the time of hearing it was not disputed between complainant on one side and OP No.1 on the other, that the former had obtained insurance cover in the sum of Rs.4,71,000/- from it for this car. Annexure R.1 is the policy of insurance. Again it was not disputed that in ordinary circumstances loss due to fire is covered as per this insurance policy. However case of OP No.1 is, that the fire had taken place due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle, as such it is not liable to indemnify the complainant. Whereas this stand was seriously contested and resisted besides being disputed by the manufacturer-OP No.3, as well as the dealer who had admittedly sold the vehicle in question to the complainant. From the narration of the above facts, what emerges is that dispute prima facie is not between complainant on one side and the OPs on the other. In the face of the stand of the ORs, dispute is between OP NO.1 on one side and the OP Nos.2 and 3 on the other. In these .circumstances and as purely interim measure we direct OP No.1 to immediately deposit Rs.4,71,000/ - the amount for which the vehicle was admittedly insured with it and on such deposit being made we further direct that this amount will be released by the office to the complainant by remitting it to his bank account No.3157, that is having with Bank of India, Shimla. This interim arrangement has been ordered looking to the nature of complaint as well as dispute which to our mind is between OP No.1 on one side and OP Nos.2 & 3 on the other. This interim arrangement has been ordered looking to the nature of complaint as well as dispute which to our mind is between OP No.1 on one side and OP Nos.2 & 3 on the other. It is clarified that in case after conclusion of the trial the contention of OP No.1 is upheld, in such a situation OPs No.2 and 3 either jointly or severally will be directed to refund the amount to OP No.1 on such terms as we may deem just and proper while disposing of the complaint as per law. So far grievance of the complainant regarding compensation etc. and or liability inter-se between the OPs is concerned, we have left this question open and the direction regarding deposit as well as its release in favour of the complainant will not in any manner prejudice the case of any of the parties to this complaint. As this order is passed without expressing any opinion on the question as which of the OPs is liable to indemnify the complainant. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx" Pursuant to this order, amount was deposited by the OP No.1 which was released in favour of the complainant. 15. No other point was urged. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and on the basis of the pleadings as well as evidence produced by the parties, we are of the view that OP No.1 is liable to indemnify the complainant to the extent of the amount for which vehicle was insured with it, i.e. Rs.4, 71,000 j-. Because the insured vehicle had caught fire within 4-5 days of its purchase, of course, subject to return of salvage by the complainant. At the time of hearing it is admitted between the parties that the salvage is lying in the premises of OP No.2, which the complainant after collecting it from the said OP, shall deliver to the OP No. 1. Likewise complainant shall execute letter of subrogation and will hand over papers, if any, which are in his possession to OP No. 1. In case OP No.1 wants the vehicle to be transferred in its favour, needful will be done by the complainant at the cost and expense of OP No.1 whenever called upon in writing in that behalf. 17. Now comes the question whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation, if so how much. In case OP No.1 wants the vehicle to be transferred in its favour, needful will be done by the complainant at the cost and expense of OP No.1 whenever called upon in writing in that behalf. 17. Now comes the question whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation, if so how much. Within 45 days of the purchase of the vehicle, the brand new vehicle was destroyed in the fire and it was a case of total loss. It was expected of OP No.1 to have settled the claim at the earliest. Instead of doing the needful, it started shifting the burden to OP No.3, as according to the former it was a case of manufacturing defect which caused the fire resulting in total loss of the vehicle. We are of the view that interest of justice will be served if OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for not settling the claim within reasonable time after the vehicle was destroyed in fire. Besides this, OP No.1 is further held liable for payment of interest on sum of Rs.4,71,000/ - from 1.9.2009 till the deposit of Rs.4,71,000/-, on this amount. Said OP is also held liable for payment of punitive damages to the complainant fixed at Rs.50,000/ -, and Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation. Complaint is allowed in these terms. Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of his order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per rules. M.R.B.