The complainant Sri Md. Rashid Ahmad has filed this complaint petition against Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Muzaffarpur for realization of Rs. 80,000/- as sum assured with 12 % p.a. interest from the date of theft till realization Rs.2,50,000/- as commercial loss at the rate of Rs.15000/- per month from the date of theft till realization and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
The brief facts, of the case is that the complainant purchased a three wheeler Tempo piaggio in the year 2009 bearing Registration No.-BR-06P-7431, and got insurance of the vehicle from o.p company vide policy No.-170604/31/13/6300015537. The validity of the same Insurance Policy was from 14-11-2013 to midnight of 13-11-2014. The further case is that on 17-08-2014, aforesaid Tempu was stolen away by unknown thieves from the house of driver Sri Dilip Rai S/o of Ram Pd. Rai of Vill-Gabasara, P.S-Kudhani, District-Muzaffarpur. The complainant lodged an FIR before Kudhni P.S. as Kudhani P.S. Case No.-310/2014 dated 18-08-2014 u/s-379 of the I.P.C. The further case is that he also informed in written to the insurance company on 25-08-2014 and also to D.T.O Muzaffarpur. The further case is that after investigation police submitted final form showing case ‘true but no clue’ on 04-12-2014 in the court of Judicial Magistrate and the same was accepted by the court on 20-05-2015. The further case is that the complainant filed claim before the o.p company with all relevant papers but O.p Company didn’t say the claim amount of the claimant. The complainant sent a legal notice on 15-12-2015 to the o.p company but o.p company did reply the same.
The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition- Photocopy of certificate of Registration–annexure-1, photocopy of Insurance Policy Certificate -annexure-2, photocopy of FIR of Kudhani P.S. Case No.-310/2014 annexure-3, photocopy of Final form of Kudhani P.S. Case No. 310/2014 -annexure-4, photocopy of order dated 20-05-2015 passed by Sri Ahamd Kumar J.M. 1st class in Kudhani P.S. Case No. 310/2014 -annexure-5, photocopy of informatory petition to D.T.O -annexure-6, photocopy of informatory petition to Insurance Company- annexure-7, photocopy of petition to B.M. National Insurance Company. Annexure-8,
On issuance of notices, o.p National Insurance Company appeared and filed their w.s. on 19-01-2017 with prayer to dismiss the complaint. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the complainant failed to prove the theft of vehicle. It has been further mentioned that it seems that vehicle is either sold by driver or complainant of this case in connivance with the driver.
The complainant has examined himself on affidavit as AW-1. On behalf of complainant, AW-2 Md. Rashid Ahmad has also been examined.
This is the case of the complainant that the vehicle in question bearing Registration No.-BR06P-7431 was stolen away by unknown thieves from the house of driver of the vehicle namely Dilip Rai. The complainant has also supported this fact in his examination-in-chief. This fact has also been stated in FIR annexure-3. So, it is an admitted fact by complainant that the vehicle in question was driven by driver Dilip Rai. No driving license of Dilip Rai has been filed on behalf of complainant to show that he was competent person to drive the vehicle. So, the vehicle was driven by the person who has no valid license to drive same which is against section-3 of MV Act-1988. It has been mentioned in the complaint petition in relief portion to realize Rs. 2,50,000/- from the o.p as commercial loss @ Rs. 15,000/- per month. The complainant AW-1 has also supported this fact in para-12 of his examination-in-chief, so it is clear that the vehicle was used as commercial vehicle by driver Dilip Rai. This is not mentioned in the complaint petition that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for his livelihood so an easy reference may be drawn that the vehicle in question was used for commercial purpose and as such the complainant is not Consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act
Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 is as follows- Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
- [ hires or avails of ] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].
Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning this livelihood by means of self-employment.
On the basis of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint is not Consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and he has also violated section 3 of the MV Act-1988. So, this complaint petition is not maintainable.
Accordingly the complaint petition is dismissed.
