The complainant Sri Birendra Kumar has filed this complaint petition against Chief Managing Director Chola Mandalam, General Insurance Company Ltd “Dare house, 2nd floor N.S.C. Bose Road Chennai and Two others (o.ps) for realization of Rs. 4 lacs/- as sum assured, Rs. 71,000/- compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 20,000/-as litigation cost with 18 % p.a. interest on total sought amount since date of theft of the vehicle bearing registration No. BR06-G8588 till date of final payment/ realization.
The brief, facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a Bolero Pick up bearing registration No.- BR06G-8588 for his livelihood and the same was insured with the o.ps. The further case is that after half an year from purchase of the vehicle, he began to suffer illness and became unable to get his vehicle run, he let out the Bolero pick vehicle on lease for a term of one year from 01-11-2014 to 31-10-2015 to one Rahul Kumar. The further case is that the said lease deed was executed on 17-11-2014 by both the parties. As per terms and condition of the lease document, the lessee Rahul Kumar had to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to lessor, Birendra Kumar. The further case is that on 12-02-2015 aforesaid pickup vehicle was coming from Sitamardhi to Muzaffarpur, in the mean time on the away the driver of the said vehicle stopped his vehicle near Runni Saidpur Mursand High School in Sitamadhi . The further case is that the driver went for breakfast after locking the vehicle and when he returned at 1 P.M., he found that the vehicle was missed. The driver of the vehicle namely Sanjeev Singh S/o Sri Shatrughan Singh, informed the complainant on mobile about the theft of the afore mentioned vehicle . The further case is that the complainant and his other family members tried their best to find out the stolen vehicle, but all went in vain so the complainant give an application to the officer-Incharge of Runni Saidpur Police Station. The Runni Saidpur Police lodged an F.I.R bearing Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 71/2015 and started investigation after completing investigation. The investigating officer submitted final form in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sitamadhi who accepted the same on 09-10-2015. The further case is that the vehicle was insured with the Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No.-3379/01126659/000/00 valid from 31-12-2014 to 30-12-2015 for Rs. 4 lacs/-. The further case is that complainant intimated the concerned Insurance company on 14-02-2015 on toll free number about the theft of the vehicle. The further case is that the Insurance Company appointed investigator to enquire into the matter of theft who misrepresented and forced the complainant to write that the complainant has already sold the concerned vehicle instead of letting the vehicle on lease, then he would get the insured value of the theft vehicle soon and on this alluration /pressure and persuasion the complainant wrote as above. The further case is that the complainant informed the D.T.O. Muzaffarpur about theft of the vehicle on 03-03-2015.The further case is that on 30-06-2015 the o.ps company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the concerned vehicle has been sold to Mr. Rahul Kumar. The complainant has denied the fact of selling the vehicle to Rahul Kumar in the complaint petition. The further case is that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 10-09-2015 but insurance company has neither sent the reply to the legal notice, nor paid the sum assured amount to the complainant.
The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition- Photocopy of Policy Schedule Cum certificate of Insurance –annexure-1, photocopy of order sheet dated 15-02-2015 annexure-2, photocopy of final form annexure-3, photocopy of order sheet dated 09-10-2015 (acceptance order) annexure-4, photocopy of petition regarding information to DTO -annexure-5, photocopy of Goods carriage permit annexure-6, photocopy of lease agreement -annexure-7, photocopy of legal notice- annexure-8, photocopy of repudiation letter -annexure-9, photocopy of registration certificate -annexure-10, photocopy of postal receipts annexure-11.
On issuance of notices, o.ps appeared and filed their w.s. on 18-06-2018 with prayer to dismiss the complaint petition with direction to the complainant to pay compensation to the insurance company for filing such type of false and frivolous case. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the case is not maintainable either in law or on facts has been further mentioned that there is no deficiency on part of o.ps. It has been further mentioned that the reliefs of complainant are contrary to the terms of the policy. O.ps have admitted regarding insurance of the vehicle bearing No.-BR06G-8588 (Bolero Pick Up) period of validity was since 31-12-2014 to 31-12-2015 subject to terms and conditions which govern the liability of this opps. Parties for any claim. It has been further mentioned that the complainant failed in safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. It has been further mentioned that the lease document is not legally valid because it was not registered. It has been further mentioned that no information was given to insurance company and as such the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
The complainant has examined himself on affidavit as AW-1.
No evidence has been adduced on behalf of o.ps.
The o.p Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the complainant and the complainant has annexed the same as annexure-9. The o.p has repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant sold the vehicle in question to Mr. Rahul Kumar before date of loss. Learned Lawyer for the complainant has submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the complainant has sold the aforesaid vehicle to Rahul Kumar before date of loss. He has further submitted that the complainant let out the vehicle for one year and he has filed the lease agreement as annexure-7. The learned lawyer for the complainant has relied on the findings of Hon’ble S.C. In the case of Omprakash V/s Reliance General Insurance and another, civil appeal No.-15611/2017 decided on 04-10-2017 and findings of Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C New Delhi in the case of M/s Harsoliya motors V/s M/s National Insurance Company ltd. first appeal No.-159/2004 decided on 03-12-2004 and Ageon Religare Life Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Rajendra Rai, first appeal No.-1669/2016 decided on 31-05-2018. The learned lawyer for the complainant submits that the o.p cannot deviate in w.s. from repudiation letter and rule of estoppel will operate he further submits that the complaint of the Consumer cannot be dismiss on technical ground as per observation of Hon’ble S.C. in the case of Omprakash V/s Reliance General insurance and another. He further submits that letting out vehicle to another person for earning his livelihood cannot come within the definition of commercial purpose.
On the other hand learned lawyer for the o.ps submits that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question for his livelihood later on he let out aforesaid vehicle to one Rahul Kr by lease agreement dated 17-11-2014 for earning Rs.15,000/- per month and as such he has not only violated the terms and condition of the insurance but his act also comes under the category of commercial purpose as defined in section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act he relied on the observation of Hon’ble S.C. observed in the case of Lakshmi Engineering works V/s PSG Industrial Institute 1995 AIR 1428 (1995 S.C.C (3) 583. He further submits that the case of the complainant co-relates with the facts of the above case in which Hon’ble S.C. observed the commercial purpose by citing example of auto Riksha, type writer , Lathe Machine. He further submits that Hon’ble S.C. has observed in the above case that a person who purchases an auto rickshaw a car, or a Lathe Machine or other Machine to be plied or operated exclusively by another person would not be a consumer.
The o.ps have raised plea of maintainability of the case and has mentioned that the relief of the complainant is contrary against the policy. He has also raised question that no information was given to insurance, as such the complainant has violated terms and condition of policy. The case of the complainant has mentioned in the complaint petition that he has purchased vehicle in question for his livelihood but after half an year, he began to suffer from illness and hence became unable to get his vehicle run that is why he had to let his pickup No.-BR06 G8588 on lease for one year from 01-11-2014 to 31-10-20185 to Rahul Kumar. This is also case of the complainant that the said lease deed was executed on 17-11-2014. The complainant has annexed photocopy of lease deed as annexure-7. The complainant has not adduced any documentary evidence on the point of his illness and on the point that he was unable to run his vehicle. He has executed the lease agreement for Rs. 15000/- per month to Rahul Kudmar on 17-11-2014 for term of one year. This is case of the complainant, that Rahul Kumar intrusted the vehicle to the driver who was coming with the vehicle on 12-02-2015 and he stopped the vehicle near Runni Saidpur Morsand High School in Sitamadhi. No document has been submitted on behalf of complainant to show that the Rahul Kumar had intrusted the vehicle to valid person. No D.L. of the Driver has been filed on behalf of complainant so it will presumed that Rahul Kumar entrusted the vehicle to person who was not legally competent to drive the same and as such he violated the statutory law of section 3 of the MV Act-1988. The complainant has also violated the terms of Insurance by letting out the vehicle for commercial purpose i.e. for earning purpose, to another and as such he has not only violated the terms and condition of the insurance but also the statutory law i.e. M.V Act. The act of the complainant also comes within example of auto rickshaw who entrust his vehicle to another for earning purpose and as such the findings of Hon’ble S.C. in Lakshmi Engineering work/ P.S.G. Industrial institute applies in this case. Another points raised by Learned Laywer for the complainant does not apply in this case because the act of complainant does not comes within the purpose of technicality rather he violated statutory law and his act comes within the purview of commercial purpose.
On the basis of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
In the circumstances the complaint is dismissed.
