C.F. CASE No. : CC/2012/69
COMPLAINANT : Imajuddin Sk.
C/o M/S M.B. Services
Mira Bazar,
P.O. Polassy (Fulbagan)
Dist. Nadia, West Bengal
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
17 M.M. Ghosh Street,
P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
PIN - 741101
2) Yashin Sk.
S/O Allarakha Sk.
Vill. Panighata
P.O. Paglachandi, P.S. Kaliganj
Dist. Nadia, PIN - 741137
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 12th December, 2014
: J U D G M E N T :
This is the case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant is an authorized dealer of Tractor under name and style ‘Inod Farm Tractors and Motors Ltd.’ On 06.05.09 one Yashin Sk came to the show-room of the complainant to purchase a tractor. Accordingly challan was prepared in the name of Yashin Sk vide model No. 3050DISC, Engine No. C327000208MU, Chasis No. LMU3050000194. But at the time of demonstration for running the tractor Yashin Sk. fled away with tractor without payment of the said tractor. After getting no trace of Yashin Sk the complainant lodged an FIR to the local police station, but after investigating the matter the police found no trace of Yashin Sk. Chargesheet was submitted showing Yashin Sk as absconder. Claim was lodged before the OP National Insurance Co. Ltd. with whom the insurance policy was made. Insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the tractor was not snatched or stolen. Hence the case. The complainant prays for sum of Rs. 3,71,953/- as the price of the tractor with the insurance premium of Rs. 30,000/- and compensation for mental pain and sufferings.
Written version was filed by OP National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 21.02.13 challenging the claim of the petitioner. The sum and substance of the written version is as below:-
The petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has no cause of action. The case is bad for defect of parties. The claim is hit by law of limitation. As the complainant is an authorized dealer he will not get any relief as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There was free consent regarding the sale of Yashin Sk purchased the tractor from the complainant. The tractor was not snatched or stolen and the alleged incident does not come under the purview of policy terms and conditions.
Another written version was filed on 14.05.13 by OP No. 1 wherein it has been pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP / Insurance Company. The complainant sold away the alleged tractor to Yashin Sk by challan. There is no negligence on the part of the OP. The petition was filed with ulterior motive. Hence, it should be dismissed.
OP No. 2 did not turn up as he was the accused who fled with the alleged tractor. Notice was served upon him by publication in the Newspaper ‘Din Poriborton’ dtd. 11.04.13.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer under Section 2(d) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986?
- Point No. 2: Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1?
- Point No. 3: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
PW-1, Imajuddin Sk filed affidavit on 23.06.14 wherein he was stated that he is an authorized dealer of ‘Inod Farm Tractors and Motors Ltd.’ He has stated that his business is only earning source to maintain his livelihood. Nowhere in the plaint or application under Section 12 he has mentioned that he has other source of income and that he has earning his bread as an authorized dealer of ‘Inod Farm Tractors and Motors Ltd.’ We have appreciated the evidence on record and interrogatories and replies thereto. We have meticulously gone through the tax invoice tax challan, declaration, seizure list and the letter intimating refusal or repudiation of claim. The file was closed as ‘no claim’. The complainant wrote to RTO on 19.08.09 regarding theft and lodged FIR on 09.08.09 vide FIR No. 58/09. The case was started under Section 406, 379 IPC by Kaliganj P.S.
Unfortunately, the evidence regarding locus standi to file the case as a consumer as lacking. The complainant has failed to establish that he has the sole business of ‘Inod Farm Tractors and Motors Ltd’ which is the sole source of the livelihood. The affidavit which was affirmed on 23.06.74 by the complainant has not been corroborated. Hence, we cannot rely upon this document in order to give relief to the complainant. The certified copy of the court documents where the case is pending against OP No. 2 has not been filed to strengthen the complainant’s case. The case law reported in 2012 (3) CPR 659 LC does not help the complainant in any way. We have meticulously gone through the evidence and the pleadings and written arguments filed by both parties and we hold that the petitioner has failed to establish his bonafide and his locus stndi as consumer as per definition of Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2012/69 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
