Parked BMW on highway catches fire; consumer court orders insurer to pay Rs 70 lakh

AI generated image used for representative image

NEW DELHI: The Maharashtra state consumer commission has directed United India Insurance Company to pay Rs 70 lakh to a BMW owner whose car was destroyed by fire after it was parked on the roadside following a late-night tyre puncture. The commission also awarded 7 percent annual interest from the date the claim was rejected, Rs 50,000 for mental agony and harassment, and Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs. The order was passed on September 16, 2026.Why did the BMW owner approach the commission?According to the commission order, Ravikant S Patil had insured his BMW car with United India Insurance Company under a policy valid from December 22, 2011 to December 21, 2012. The car had an Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs 70 lakh and Patil had paid a premium of Rs 1,65,996.On the night of March 8, 2012, the BMW suffered a tyre puncture on a highway. Because it was late at night, the driver moved the car to the side of the road, locked it and returned to Solapur in another vehicle.The next morning, the car was found completely burnt. The incident was subsequently recorded by the local police and fire department.The insurer registered the claim as a major “total loss” case but later rejected it, citing condition 4 of the insurance policy. The insurer said the car had been left unattended on the road without proper precautions and that this amounted to a breach of the policy conditions.Patil challenged the rejection before the consumer commission. He argued that the car had been locked and parked safely because the puncture occurred late at night and that the fire was an unforeseen incident. He sought Rs 99 lakh along with 18 percent annual interest.The insurer alleged that the puncture was only a minor breakdown and not an accident. It argued that the complainant or his driver should have stayed with the car or moved it to a safer place such as a nearby village or dhaba.The insurer also questioned why the spare tyre was not used or why the car was not towed back to Solapur using the second vehicle that had arrived at the spot.It relied on condition 4 of the policy, which required the insured to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle and prevent further loss. The insurer also pointed to Patil’s statement to the police that the car had been left unattended overnight.The insurer further disputed the cause of the fire. It said the spot panchnama showed burnt grass around 50 metres away from the car and argued that the cause of the fire was suspicious.It further claimed that the car’s value, after depreciation, could not be more than Rs 59 lakh and argued that the complaint should be dismissed.Why did the commission reject the insurer’s argument?The bench of presiding member, Poonam V Maharshi, and member Dr Nisha Amol Chavhan examined condition 4 of the policy and said it did not completely prohibit leaving a broken-down vehicle unattended. Instead, it required proper precautions to be taken to prevent further damage or loss.The commission said what amounts to a proper precaution has to be considered according to the circumstances of each case.It found that the driver had moved the BMW to the side of the road near Chacha Dhaba, rolled up the windows and securely locked the vehicle. The commission said these actions showed that reasonable precautions had been taken.The commission also considered the fact that the puncture happened late at night on a state highway and that no tyre repair facility or mechanic was available at that hour in Dhulkhed.“Seeking an alternative vehicle to safely return to Solapur, while leaving the locked car parked on the roadside, was a practical and necessary decision, not a negligent one,” the commission said.The commission rejected the insurer’s argument that the driver should have remained inside the vehicle overnight to protect it.“We find this argument not only hyper-technical but fundamentally flawed and insensitive. A vehicle parked on the shoulder of a highway at night is highly vulnerable to high-speed collisions and criminal elements. The law does not and cannot compel an insured individual or their employee to jeopardize their physical safety or risk their life merely to guard a depreciating material asset,” the commission added.The commission also said there must be a direct connection between an alleged breach of a policy condition and the loss before an insurer can reject a claim on that ground.It noted that the exact origin of the fire remained undetermined in the police and fire department records. The insurer had not produced forensic evidence showing that leaving the car locked on the roadside caused the fire.The commission also rejected the argument that failure to change the tyre using the spare tyre justified rejection of the claim. It said the inability to change a tyre at night did not allow the insurer to reject a total-loss claim arising from a separate incident of fire.The commission concluded that there was no evidence of wilful wrongdoing, serious negligence or bad faith by the complainant. It held that the insurer’s reliance on condition 4 to reject the claim amounted to deficiency in service.The insurer had argued that the BMW’s value after depreciation was not more than Rs 59 lakh. The commission rejected this argument.It said that once the Insured Declared Value had been agreed upon and the premium had been charged on that basis, the IDV becomes the value applicable for settling a total-loss claim.“The opposite party cannot unilaterally depreciate the value at the time of claim settlement without a statutory basis. The IDV of Rs. 70,00,000/- must be honoured,” the bench concluded.What did the consumer commission order?The Maharashtra state consumer commission partly allowed the complaint and directed United India Insurance Company to: