F I N A L   O R D E R

The complainant has filed this case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer directing the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 to pay Rs.2,16,200/- along with 12% interest for the cost of damage vehicle, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

In short the case of the complainant is that the complainant was/is the owner of vehicle bearing No.WB-59A/9696 (Truck). The said vehicle was duly insured with the O.P./ Insurer on 10.03.2014. The said Truck met an accident as a result the vehicle in question was badly damaged. The complainant intimated the incident to the O.P. No.2 and also submitted required documents. The complainant stated in the complaint that Sri Arun Dey drove the vehicle in question on the date of accident but in the claim form wrongly mentioned the name Indrajit Sarkar as a driver of the vehicle and submitted his driving license copy to the O.P. No.2, as the owner of vehicle was/is the owner of 30 numbers of vehicle, so, he was/is the custodian of copy of driving licenses of such drivers. The complainant had received one letter from the O.P. No.2 mentioning the question that the driver Indrajit Sarkar was holding the license of Light Motor Vehicle, who had no eligibility to drive the heavy vehicle as per M. V. Act as such why your claim shall not be repudiated and in reply, the complainant by sending a letter had clarify the mistake and submitted some documents to the O.Ps. But the O.P. No.2 by sending a letter dated 20.03.2014 intimated the complainant that they are unable to process the claim; hence the claim of the petitioner stands repudiated.

Finding no alternative the complainant appeared before this Forum for getting relief as per prayer.

O.P. No.2 contested this case by filing W.V. denying the allegations of the complainant stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable in law, it is fact that on the date of accident Indrajit Sarkar was the driver of the vehicle in question who had no valid driving license, the driver violated the terms and condition of M. V. Act and Rules and the complaint petition is liable to dismissed with cost.

The name of O.P. No.1 has been expunged vide order No.08, dated 26.02.2015.

O.P. No.3 did not contest the case as such the case is heard ex-parte against the O.P. No.3.

To prove the case, the complainant has submitted memo of evidences supported by affidavit, answer of questionnaires and filed some photocopies of documents.

O.P. No.2 in its defence submitted W.V., questionnaires and some photocopies of decisions of Hon’ble National Commission and also Hon’ble High Courts.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

On perusal of complaint, memo of evidences and documents it appeared that the complainant was/is the owner of a Truck bearing No.WB-59A/9696 which was validly insured with the O.P./ Insurer on 10.03.2014. The said vehicle met an accident and badly damaged. The complainant intimated the matter to the O.P. No.2 along with documents and submitted claim form. The complainant received one letter from O.P./ Insurer that the driver, Indrajit Sarkar, whose name and license number had been mentioned in the claim form was possessing “Light Motor Vehicle License”  who had no eligibility to drive heavy vehicle as per M. V. Act, as such the O.Ps. are not in a position to process  the claim. Then the complainant by sending a letter to the O.P. No.2 stated that due to mistake the name of driver of the vehicle in question Indrajit Sarkar was mentioned, actually, Sri Arun Dey was driving the vehicle in question on the date of accident and his driving license was also submitted to the O.P. No.2 and further stated that as the complainant was/is the owner of Thirty (30) numbers of vehicle and such numbers of vehicle drivers license was within the custody of the complainant so, it is mere mistake only. But the O.P./ Insurer has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that on the date of occurrence the driver Indrajit Sarkar had no valid license to drive the heavy vehicle and the O.P./ Insurer also disbelieve the subsequent statements of the complainant. The complainant also fail to establish his defence by adducing any cogent evidence or produce any documents in this regard.

O.P. No. 2 by filing W.V. denying the allegations of the complainant and Put its defence that on the date of occurrence Indrajit Sarkar was driving the vehicle who holds Light Motor vehicle license as such he was not eligible to drive the heavy vehicle i.e. Truck etc. The O.P. also stated that the driver was violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy and prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

On Careful scrutiny of the record and documents this Forum find that there is question of law is involved in this case as regards on the point of maintainability.

The complainant has stated in the complainant petition, memo of evidence supported by affidavit and answer of questionnaires that the complainant was/is the owner of thirty numbers of vehicle and also admitted that he was/is a businessman. In the instant case the complaint used to run his transport business for commercial purpose to earn profit not for the purpose of his livelihood maintained. As per Consumer Protection Act, this Forum has the jurisdiction to try the case of consumer complaint but in this case the complainant is not treated as a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Under such circumstances this Forum is not in a position to pass any order as per prayer of the complainant.

Thus the complaint case fails.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the case being No. CC-83/2014 be and the same is dismissed against O.P. No.2 and ex-parte against the O.P. No. 3 without cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to each parties free of cost.