BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1258/2014

DATED ON THIS THE 17^th March 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri DEVAKUMAR.M.C,

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay damages of Rs.5,92,930/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the complaint, till the date of realization with other reliefs.
2.     The complainant represented by its Managing Partners, was doing business of public transport, having various cargo vehicles, carriers, lorries, trucks etc.,  A transport vehicle belonging to the complainant bearing Registration No.KA-09-B-5995, insured with opposite party company, met with an accident on 10.03.2014, and got damaged.  The insurance policy was in force from 31.01.2014 to 30.01.2015.  The vehicle left for repair with M/s Prerana Motors (P) Ltd., at Mysuru.  A sum of Rs.5,29,680/- has been claimed under the policy, as per the estimation of M/s Prerana Motors.  The opposite party repudiated the claims.  A legal notice caused on 01.04.2014 calling upon to settle the claims.  An untenable reply was issued by opposite parties on 14.04.2014.  As such, the aggrieved complainant filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite parties filed its version and submits the complainant has suppressed the facts, to make unlawful gain.  The complainant had obtained the insurance policy and issued a cheque towards premium amount.  The said cheque got dishonoured for the reason “Exceeds Arrangements”.  Thereby, the contract of insurance become void ab-initio.  As such, the opposite parties not liable to indemnify any loss suffered, as per section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The facts of dishonour of the cheque submitted towards premium amount has been communicated to the complainant, still he failed to pay the premium amount. As such, on the date of occurrence of the accident, the policy was not in force, hence repudiated the claims.  So opposite parties submits there is no deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice by them and hence, not liable to pay any damages and prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4.      The complainant lead his evidence by filing affidavit with several documents.  The opposite parties filed affidavit with documents.  Both side parties filed written arguments.  Heard oral submission of opposite parties counsel and matter posted for order.
5.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite parties in not settling the insurance policy claims in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KA-09-B-5995 and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
3.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- Does not call for discussion.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant is a partnership concern, in the business of transporting owning various types of transport vehicles. It got insured all its vehicle with opposite party insurance company.  One of its transport vehicle met with accident on 10.03.2014 and got damaged.  A claim was made, based on the estimation by M/s Prerana Motors (Pvt.) Ltd., Mysuru.  The opposite party repudiated the claims.  Hence, filed the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
8.    The opposite party issued the insurance policy upon submission of the cheque towards the premium amount.  The said cheque got dishonoured and returned with an endorsement “Exceeds Arrangements”.  Due to dishonour of the cheque, the policy terms and conditions, violated and the policy got vitiated since from the beginning.  The complainant failed to deposit premium amount despite of intimation regarding the dishonour of the cheque.  As such, the opposite party is not liable to indemnify the loss suffered.  Hence, opposite party contended that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by it and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
9.    Further, the complainant was running a transportation business owning several transport vehicles.  Thereby, under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act 1986, the complainant does not fall under the purview of the definition of “Consumer”.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled to claim any reliefs under the C.P.Act.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
10. Point No.2:- With the above discussion, this point does not call for discussion.
11. Point No.3:- From the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 17^th March 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                          (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER