DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.442/2010

M/s  Anita Plastic,

PU-72, Vishakha Enclave,

Pitam Pura, Delhi through

Smt. Anita Bedi its Sole Proprietor.

                                                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

F.A.I. Building, 10 Shaheed Jeet,

Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi.

Also at:-

Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Center,

Saket, New Delhi-110017.                                       ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution        : 07.07.10  Date of Order                : 19.11.19

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

1. Complainant in the present complaint prays for the following:-

1. As per policy total value of vehicle was Rs.8,93,950/- and there is total loss, so opposite party should pay Rs.8,93,950/-.  
2. Complainant is suffering loss in income to the tune of Rs.50,000/-p.m. from August 2009 till date…Rs.4,50,000/-
3. Interest which bank can recover from complainant and for which a notice has been sent by said bank to complainant @ Rs.10,000/- p.m. from August 2009  to April 2010.. Rs.90,000/-.
4. Compensation for harassment & mental torture Rs.2,00,000/-.
5. Legal Expenses for Notice Rs.11,000/-.

2. Dispute between the parties arose when Iffco Tokio (OP) repudiated the claim of the accidental vehicle i.e. Toyota Innova of the complainant. As per the Insurance policy placed on record by the complainant as well as OP, it is observed that vehicle was initially insured as a private vehicle on 20.02.2009. Subsequently, the complainant took commercial package policy on 29.12.2009. The period of insurance remained the same i.e. from 07.02.2009 to 06.02.2010.

3. It is further the complainant’s case that the complainant is a registered owner of the commercial vehicle Toyota Innova bearing No. DL1YB-6623. The vehicle has been registered as a tourist taxi with Registering Authority, Delhi. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by OP. Further in the prayer the complainant admits that the complainant is suffering loss in income to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per month.

4.      Therefore, from the above mentioned facts it is inferred that the vehicle which was registered as commercial vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle to earn profits. It is further noticed that complainant is not an individual, therefore, is not entitled to claim benefit of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) which protects the individual who is doing commercial work for his livelihood. The vehicle was not purchased for self employment to earn livelihood. Hence, the present complaint does not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For ready reference the relevant section of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is reproduced as under:-

(ii) ¹² [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ¹² [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person ¹³ [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];

[Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;]

6.      In view of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 19.11.19