Haryana

StateCommission

A/474/2015

HARSH CHATURVEDI - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SHISH YADAV

19 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      474 of 2015

Date of Institution:      25.05.2015

Date of Decision :      19.10.2015

 

Harsh Chaturvedi s/o Sh. Kali Charan Chaturvedi, Resident of Mohalla Nai Abadi, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited Head Office 2^nd Floor, Dare House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001 having Branch Office at Brass Market Rewari, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.      Indusind Bank Limited, Registered Office 2401 Gen Thimmayya Road, Cantonment Pune, having Branch a Brass Market Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari through its Branch Manager.

 

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Ashish Yadav, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Shri Gaurav Gaur, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated February 10^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari, (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.    

2.      Harsh Chaturvedi-complainant-appellant, got his Auto Rickshaw (Three Wheeler) bearing registration No.HR-47-B/1560, insured with ‘Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company’ (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) for the period from January 14^th, 2011 to January 13^th, 2012, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-12). The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) was Rs.1,19,273/-. 

3.      On July 12^th, 2011 at about 5/5.30 P.M. the Auto Rickshaw was being driven from Rewari to Kosli by Sunil Kumar son of Ganga Ram. At that time three passengers were travelling in the auto rickshaw and when it reached on Main Road Rampura, the driver stopped the auto rickshaw in front of his house and went to inform the family members about his journey. On return, he found the auto rickshaw missing. The passengers travelling therein had stolen the same. Information was given to the Police Control Room on telephone No.100. The Police Control Room immediately flashed a V.T. message to all the Station House Officers, Incharge Police Posts and PCRs etc.  F.I.R. No.129 (Exhibit C-4) was lodged in Police Station, Rampura, District Rewari on July 13^th, 2011. The Insurance Company was informed. The Police submitted untraced Report. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it repudiated the claim vide letter dated June 25^th, 2012, (Exhibit C-11) on the ground that the vehicle was left un-attended by leaving the key in the ignition.

4.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by reiterating the plea as stated in the repudiation letter (Exhibit C-11).

6.      The District Forum dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and therefore the complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’.

7.      Hon’ble National Commission in Original Petition No.35 of 2003, M/s R.R. International versus M/s New India Assurance Company,  decided on January 8^th, 2013, held as under:-

“9.       Learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that claim filed by the complainant is not maintainable as services of opposite party have been hired for commercial purposes and thus complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer.  This argument is devoid of force in the light of judgment in the case of Harsolia Motors Vs. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2006) 5 CPR 1 (NC) in which it was held that “a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose.  Policy is only for indemnification and actual loss.  It is not intended to generate profit”.  In the light of aforesaid judgment it becomes clear that availing service of insurance company does not amount to taking services for commercial purposes and, hence, complainant is a consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.

 

8.      In view of authority cited supra, the complainant falls within the definition of ‘consumer’. The District Forum has failed to appreciate this legal aspect of the case and erred in dismissing the complaint without touching it on merits.

9.      In this view of the matter, the case requires to be remanded to the District Forum for deciding the complaint on merits. Hence, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the District Forum, Rewari, with the direction to decide the complaint on merits and preferably within a period of three months, which shall be from the date of first appearance of the parties. 

10.     The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Rewari on 27.11.2015.

11.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 19.10.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL