Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/989/2016

M/s Ruchira Papers Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikram Tandon

25 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/989/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	01/11/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	25/08/2017

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Ruchira Papers Limited having registered and Works Office at Trilokpur Road, Kala Amb, Sirmaour, Himachal Pradesh, through its Secretarial Officer, Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma.

 

…… Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

1)   Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited, Suite No.2, 1^st Floor, SCO 174-175, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person.

 

2)   Audi Delhi South, 13/1, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana-121003, through its Manager/Auth. Person. [Deleted vide order dated 21.02.2017]

 

3)   Airtel India Limited, near Kanahiya Sahib Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, through its Manager/ Auth./ Nodal Officer.

………… Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA      MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh. Vikram Tandon, Counsel for Complainant.

            Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

            Opposite Party No.2 deleted.

            Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          Briefly stated, the Complainant got his Audi/A4 bearing Regn. No. CH-01-AP-8810 insured with the Opposite Party No.1 for the period from 23.08.2015 to 22.08.2016, after paying the requisite premium. Unfortunately, on 21.05.2016, the aforesaid vehicle, while in Delhi, being driven by one of the drivers of the Complainant, met with an accident and was taken to Opposite Party No.2 Agency. Upon intimation, Opposite Party No.1 deputed a Surveyor, who submitted his survey report and thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 sent approval for repair of the car, except bumper. However, on the assurance of Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.2 repaired the vehicle in question and raised a bill of Rs.2,20,871/-. The Complainant took the vehicle from the Agency after paying the bill because Opposite Party No.1 refused to pay the claim for front bumper. After making payment for the repair, the Complainant sent e-mail dated 23.06.2016 to the Opposite Party No.1 to release the claim amount. However, to the dismay of the Complainant, on 22.07.2016, Opposite Party No.1 repudiated the entire claim of the Complainant on erroneous grounds. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte. Whereas, in view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, the name of Opposite Party No.2 was ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 21.02.2017.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1, in its written statement, has pleaded that the front bumper of the insured vehicle was not allowed/approved by the Surveyor as at the time of taking the policy, the said bumper was already in damaged condition. It has been asserted that one Mr. Ram Murthy was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and the answering Opposite Party gave approval to start the repair work subject to terms & conditions of the Policy so that the vehicle would be ready in time and the Complainant was told to submit the Driving License of the said Mr. Ram Murthy. However, when the Complainant failed to submit the same, a letter dated 23.06.2016 was issued for submission of the same to process the claim. However, inspite of reminders, when the Complainant did not submit the driving license of Mr. Ram Murthy, the answering Opposite Party vide letter dated 22.07.2016 repudiated the claim due to violation of the terms & conditions of the policy. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 have been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      The Complainant has contended in Para 3 of the Complaint, that it is having different type of vehicles in its name and there are number of drivers employed by the Complainant Company, which are on its pay-roll. To substantiate this fact, details of the 44 drivers employed by the Complainant Company is found attached with the Complaint as Annexure C-3.

 

8.      In this backdrop, the sole question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Complainant falls within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act or not? Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in negative.
9.      Significantly, a specific objection qua the same, was taken by Opposite Party No.1, in its written argument also. Since it is admitted case of the Complainant that it is a Company and is having number of different types of vehicles in its name and there are number of drivers employed by it which are on its pay roll. Thus, in view of the said admission, the Complainant, to our mind, does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’.

 

10.      In Economic Transport Organization Vs. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., & Anr., I (2010) CPJ 4 (SC), the Constitution Bench of the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that if the goods are purchased or the services are availed of, by the complainant for any commercial purpose, then he does not fall within the definition of a consumer, and consequently, the consumer complaint will not be maintainable, in such cases. In Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd. 2011 (1) SCC 525 and Sanjay D. Ghodawat Vs. R.R.B. Energy Ltd., IV (2010) CPJ 178 (NC), a case decided by a Full Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, similar principle of law, was laid down. In M/s MCS Computer Services (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Allena Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd., Revision Petition No. 3517 of 2007, decided on 14.03.2012, it was, in clear-cut terms, held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, that the respondent/complainant, being a Private Limited Company and the commercial activity being carried out by it, could not be said to be for earning its livelihood, by way of self-employment. It was further held that the Private Limited Company, had to act through somebody and the question of livelihood and self-employment would not arise. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the instant case. It is, therefore, held that since the complainant Company did not fall within the definition of a consumer, the consumer complaint was not maintainable.

 

11.      In the light of above, we are of the opinion that the complaint is devoid of any merit, hence it deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.    

 

12.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25^th August, 2017                                               Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

   PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                              Sd/- 

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER