Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he had purchased Tata Indica V-2 diesel car on 17th July, 2007 for tourist business. The amount of Rs.2,68,000/- was financed by the O.P.No.2. While advancing loan, the O.P.No.2 had taken policy from O.P.No.1 on behalf of the complainant. The complainant lost his vehicle therefore he lodged complaint in police station. The vehicle was not traced therefore police closed the matter and informed the complainant accordingly. The complainant appointed taxi driver and was doing his business. For the ten month, driver was doing the business properly but thereafter he ran away with the vehicle. Therefore, the complainant lodged police complaint. F.I.R. was registered on 3rd April, 2010 at Tilak Nagar Police Station. The O.P.No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground that at the material time vehicle was registered as a taxi however, policy was issued as a private car. The complainant also mentioned in police letter dated 18th March, 2010 that the vehicle is sold to Mohammad Ahetram and therefore the complainant is not entitled for the claim. The vehicle was purchased for the tourist business. The complainant was knowing only ‘Gurumukhi’ language. Therefore, he signed the policy form prepared by the O.P.No.2 and submitted to the O.P.No.1. It was the mistake of the O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.2 was knowing that vehicle will be used for taxi purpose. The complainant has not written any letter dated 9th July, 2010 mentioning that vehicle was sold on 18th March, 2010 to Mr.Mohammad Ahetram. The police Station Officer asked the complainant to write the complaint in Marathi. One person who was present in police station wrote the complaint in Marathi. The complainant was not knowing the contents of that complaint. Therefore, he is denying the contents of letter dated 18th March, 2010. As the claim is repudiated, he has filed this complaint for recovery of Rs.2,41,021/- with 18% interest. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.25,000/-.
2) The O.P.No.1 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the car was given on hire to Mr. Mohammad Ahetram on monthly payment of Rs.9,000/-. He had also received Rs.40,000/- at the time of delivery of vehicle to said Ahetram. Thus, the car was insured for business/commercial purpose. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The vehicle was registered and used as tourist vehicle through Mr.Mohammad Ahetram on hire. But, the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle. As per policy condition, the policy would cover use for any purpose other than hire or reward. The policy was not covering risk if the vehicle was used for hire or reward. The complainant has suppressed the material facts. The complainant has not informed the transfer of ownership of vehicle. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the claim as prayed.
3) The O.P.No.2 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the O.P.No.2 is only a financer who has advanced the loan amount. Initially, policy was taken for one year and thereafter it was renewed annually. This O.P.No.2 has no concern with renewal of the policy. This opponent is not aware about the documents executed by the complainant and the O.P.No.1. This O.P. is unnecessarily dragged and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
4) The O.P.No.3 though served did not attend the Forum. Hence, the O.P.No.3 is proceeded ex-parte. The O.P.No.4 has been deleted by the order of this Forum dated 8th July, 2011.
5) After hearing all the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1. | Whether there is deficiency in service ? | No |
2. | Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed ? | No |
3. | What order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
6) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the vehicle and the loan amount was advanced by the O.P.No.2. Initially, policy was taken in the year-2007 and subsequently it was renewed annually. The loan was advanced in the year-2007. Thereafter, the O.P.No.2 has no concern with the renewal of policy. The alleged incident took place in the year-2010. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the O.P.No.2 has any concern with the policy for the year-2010. The complainant has unnecessarily added O.P.No.2 in this complaint.
7) On perusal of police complaint dated 3rd April, 2010 (copy of F.I.R. is produced by the complainant) it is clear that vehicle was handed over by the complainant to his friend Mr.Mohammad Ahetram for plying and Mr.Ahetram was paying Rs.9,000/- per month to the complainant as hire charges. As per complaint, for the first ten months Mr.Ahetram had paid Rs.9,000/- per month to the complainant. Thereafter, from the month of October-2010, he stopped the payment. The vehicle was taken by Mr.Ahetram from the complainant on 1st November, 2008. Thus, from the complaint itself, it is clear that there was hire agreement in between the complainant and his friend Mr.Mohammad Ahetram. It is clear from the complaint that Mr.Mohammad Ahetram stopped the payment after nine months therefore the complainant has lodged the police complaint. From the complaint itself, it is clear that the dispute is in between the complainant and Mr.Mohamamd Ahetram. There was no theft or accident. As per the policy condition, there was limitation to use the vehicle i.e. the vehicle should not be used for hire or reward. The complainant committed breach of policy condition by giving the vehicle to his friend Mr.Mohammad Ahetram on hire at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month. The learned advocate for the O.P.No.2 has submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material fact from the Forum therefore the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed. For this purpose she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV (2011) CPJ 107 (NC) in the case of Ansar Pasha –Versus- Tata Motors Limited, decided on 15th July, 2011. In para 12 of the judgment, it is held that
12. Thus it stands proved from th record that petitioner has suppressed and concealed the material facts from the two For a below. Further more, when the complaint was filed before the District Forum, at that time, petitioner had already sold the vehicle in question and was not the owner. The State Commission under these circumstances has already dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
In the instant complaint before us also, the complainant has suppressed the letter dated 18th March, 2010. The complainant himself has handed over the vehicle to his friend Mr.Ahetram on hire basis and there is no theft. Therefore, he can not claim any relief against the insurance company. His dispute is with Mr.Ahetram who had refused to return his vehicle.
8) The learned advocate for the complainant has submitted that even though there is change of user still the complainant is entitled for the relief from the insurance company. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2010 (SC) 2090 in the case of Amalnendu Sahoo –Versus- Oriental Insurance Company Limited. In that case, there was accident therefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given direction to the insurance company to pay 75% claim. But, in the instant complaint before us, there was no accident or theft but the complainant himself has handed over the vehicle to his friend on hire basis. Therefore, the abovecited judgment is not applicable in this case.
9) Thus, the O.P.No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim. The complainant has unnecessarily filed this complaint. Therefore, it deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1) Complaint stands dismissed.
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced dated 11th February, 2014
