Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/502

KVR INFORSYS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 27.11.2015

 

First Appeal-502/2012

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

M/s KVR Inforsys Pvt. Ltd.

C/o W-29, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II,

New Delhi-110 020,

Through

Mr. Ajay Goel, Executive Director,

                                                                                     …..Appellant

                                     

Versus

 

The Cholamandalam MS General Ins. Co. Ltd.

9^th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building,

Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,

New Delhi,

Through Its Manager/Officer in Charge,

 

2^nd Address:

Dare House, 2^nd Floor,

No. 2, N.S.C. Bose Road,

Chennai- 600 001, India                  

                                                                                 ....Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor – Member

(O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.  Whether reporters of the local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.  To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Salma Noor, Member

1.             The brief facts of the case are that the complainant company has got insured its Hyundai Santro Car bearing No. DL7C J-3301 with the respondent M/s KVR Infosys Pvt. Ltd.  for the period 25.07.2008 to 24.07.2009  with insured value of Rs. 3,37,339/- for the vehicle plus for Rs. 47,500/-  for value of the CNG Kit.

2.             The vehicle was stolen between the night of 24/25.08.2008. The appellant/complainant came to know about the theft in the morning of 25.08.2008 and immediately informed the police. FIR No. 362 was registered by the police station on 26.08.2008. The appellant also informed the respondent company on 27.08.2008 through M/s Sunrise Hyundai Showroom as the vehicle was purchased from the said showroom and the untraced report was filed by the police on 17.09.2008. Thereafter, the appellant/complainant informed the OP about the police report on 25.10.2008. And, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the respondent vide letter dated 22.01.2009 on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy.

3.             Aggrieved by the repudiation of his claim the appellant/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum with the following prayers:

“(a) Rs. 384839/- as the I.D.V. of the vehicle including value of CNG kit of Rs. 47500/-

(b) Interest @ 24& p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 25.08.2008 till the date of payment.

(c) Rs. 25000/- being the amount of legal expenses and fee of the advocate payable by the complainant.

(d) Rs. 50000/- being the compensation for the harassment, inconvenience, frustration, mental agony and financial losses suffered by the complainant due to the unfair practice on the part of the opposite party.

(e) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice”.

4.             The District Forum issued notice to the respondent. The respondent filed written version. Thereafter, the complainant file rejoinder and both the parties led their evidence.

5.             The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the ground that the complainant is a company and the car was being used for the affairs of the company, which is a commercial activity and therefore the complainant is not a consumer within the ambit of the provision of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismissed the complaint.

6.             That is what brings the appellant/complainant in appeal before this Commission.

7.             We have heard, Sh. Jhuma Bose, Counsel for the appellant and Sh. L.R. Goel, Counsel for the respondent.

8.             We disincline to agree with the findings of the District Forum that the appellant/complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and appellant was using the insured vehicle for commercial purposes. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. decided by National Commission in FA No. -159/2004 decided on 03.12.2004 wherein the similar situation was dealt with and it was held that the insurance was not for commercial purpose and insuree therefore cannot be deprived from the benefits granted to the consumer by the Consumer Protection Act. In accordance with this announcement by the Hon’ble National Commission, we hold that complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal of the appellant/complainant is allowed and case is remanded back to the District Forum for further proceedings in accordance with law.

9.             The parties are directed to appear on 10.02.2016 before the District Forum.

10.            A copy of the order be sent to the District Forum concerned for compliance and keeping in its record.

                File be consigned to record room. 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

Rakeeba