This is a case filed under section 2(1) (c) sub section (ii) read with section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the complainant Sanjay Kumar Chowdhury and along with power of attorney holder, Raj Kumar Mahato, against the Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Limited, who are the contesting Opposite Parties.

The complainants’ case in brief is that, the complainant Sanjay Kumar Chowdhury had purchased a tata truck Model LPT1109/36 in the year 2012 and had purchased an Insurance from the Opposite Party Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Limited, on 27.02.2018 with validity till 27.02.2019, against premium of Rs. 27,891/-.

Thereafter, the complainant had completed all the formalities with regard to the running of the said vehicle on the road. Then on 28.07.17 the complainant had leased the said vehicle to power of attorney holder, Sri. Raj Kumar Mahato, to look after the said vehicle against down payment of Rs. 226578/- and also to pay the remaining 29 installments, to the HDB Finance Service Limited, vide a registered lease agreement. The complainant Sanjay Kumar Chowdhury, further executed a power of attorney on 27.09.18 in favour of Sri. Raj Kumar Mahato, who in turn then became the partial owner and also took possession of the said vehicle,.

On 09.08.2018, while the said vehicle was returning from Falakata to Siliguri at 10 a.m., met with a major accident, following which the said vehicle suffered major damages to the exterior as well as the engine. Sri.Raj Kumar Mahato then towed the vehicle to Siliguri by a crane. The vehicle was then repaired, incurring expenditure to the tune of Rs. 447925/-. Sri. Raj Kumar Mahato then made an insurance claim and the surveyor of the O.P. visited and took pictures. On 14^th August 2018 the bills was submitted for claim but the O.P. repudiated the claim. Hence, this case.

The O.P. Insurance Company contested the above claim by filing a Written Version wherein they have denied the main allegation of the complainants. They have assailed the claim mainly on the ground that the complainant had taken a Commercial Insurance Policy and the vehicle was also used for commercial purpose. That apart, the O.P. have also claimed that the complainants failed to mention that the vehicle was purchased for earning his livelihood and as such the complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer, under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. 1986. They have also pointed out that the vehicle had been sold to Sri. Raj Kumar Mahato and who had become the partial owner and was enjoying the usufructs, without intimating the O.P. Insurance Company. The power of attorney was also executed long after the accident, on 27.09.2018, for presenting the false claim. The O.P’s. have further stated that on receipt of the claim they had conducted an enquiry through their approved surveyor and had asked the complainant to file certain documents, failing which they had closed this case, and repudiated the claim.

We have heard both the Ld. Lawyers of the two parties. Perused the material on record as well as the Judgements relied on by the parties.

Only a short question as to whether the complainant was a consumer within the definition of the Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, needs to be answered.

It is very clear from the Insurance Policy that the vehicle in question was a “Goods carrying-Public carrier” and the Insurance purchased was “Commercial vehicle-Package Policy”. It also transpires from Registration Certificate as well as the permit issued that the above vehicle in question was used as a public carrier and not for personal use. Hence, the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Since the complainant has not been able to prove, to be a consumer, the relief sought by the complainant is not available under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the prayer of the complainant cannot be allowed.

As a result the case fails.

It is therefore,

ORDERED

That the instance case be and the same is dismissed on contest, but without cost considering the facts and circumstances of the case.