DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

                                        ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/138/2017

No. DF/ Central/

Ms. Prem Mercantiles P. Ltd.

Plot No. 33-34, Morta Industrial Area,

Opp. Manandham Mandir, Meerut Road,

Ghaziabad, U.P. – 201 003…..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

       M/s  The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

       Filmistan, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi – 05                            …..OPPOSITE PARTY

Quorum: Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

                Mr. R.S. Nagar, Member

                                                              ORDER                              

Rekha Rani, President

1.       Ms. Prem Mercantiles P. Ltd., having its registered office at Plot No. 33-34, Morta Industrial Area, Opp. Manandham Mandir, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, U.P. – 201003 (in short the Complainant) filed instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended.  The complainant got vehicle regd. no. DL-1-LW-1535 insured from M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (in short the OP) vide policy no. 32010331150100001065 for the period 20.08.2015 to 19.08.2016.  The vehicle was damaged in an accident.  OP was informed about the same by the complainant.  OP deputed Mr. R.K. Jain Surveyor for the assessment of the loss.  The surveyor assessed loss at Rs. 51,400/-.  OP repudiated the claim on the ground that driving license of the driver Harinder Dass was black listed by the DCP.  Hence, the instant complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 51,400/- along with 18% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. 

2.   On receipt of notice of the instant complaint, OP appeared and filed written statement.  It is pleaded that complainant company is a ‘Limited’ company and the vehicle in question was not used and driven exclusively for the purpose of livelihood and as such the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further stated that the complaint is triable by a civil court and this forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter.  It is further stated that surveyor had assessed loss at Rs. 51,400/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy and that the driving license of the driver had been temporarily blacklisted which indicated that on the date of the accident he was not having a valid and effective driving license.

      Both sides adduced evidence by way of affidavits.  We have heard Sh. Pranav Mishra, counsel for complainant and Sh. Mandeep Singh, counsel for OP.

      Learned counsel for OP vehemently contended that the complainant is not a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act in view of the judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering works versus PGS Industrial Institute Vol. II (1995) CPJ page-1, SC.

      In the very beginning of the written statement, a preliminary objection was raised by the OP that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose.  Therefore the complainant is not a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and in view of Laxmi Engineering works(Supra) the matter is not triable in Consumer Forum.  We called upon the complainant to respond to the said objection of the OP by filing a rejoinder. Opportunity was granted to the complainant to file rejoinder on 11.10.2017.  On the next date of hearing i.e. 10.11.2017 learned counsel for complainant sought adjournment to file rejoinder.  Last and final opportunity was granted to file rejoinder on 19.12.2017.  On 19.12.2017, learned counsel for complainant submitted that he did not want to file rejoinder.

      Objection of the OP that the complainant company purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose has remained unrebutted.  The vehicle is not indicated to have been purchased and used for earning livelihood by way of self-employment of the complainant.  As such the complaint is barred in view of section 2(1)(d) read with the judgment of Laxmi Engineering Works(supra). 

      OP has further objected to the claim on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid driving license on the date of the accident.  It is stated that the driving license of the driver was black listed on the date of the said accident.  It is not in dispute that complainant was aware of the fact of the driving license of the driver had been blacklisted.  But complainant has submitted that blacklisted driving license does not become invalid.

          Since the complainant is not a consumer, the complaint is dismissed being barred under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

Announced this            Day  of                       2018.