DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

                                        ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/ 286/2016

No. DF/ Central/

SH. JASPAL SINGH

PROPRIETOR

MILAP TRANSPORT ROADLINES

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 152,

TRANSPORT CENTER, ROHTAK ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110035.
 

                                                                                                                  ……..COMPLAINANT          

 VERSUS

1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:-
3, MIDDLETON STREET, POST BOX NO. 9229,
KOLKATA-700071, WEST BENGAL

THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
ALSO AT: GENERAL CLAIM HUB,
2-E/25, THIRD FLOOR,
ABOVE HDFC BANK, JHANDEWALAN,
NEW DELHI-110055
2. MR. K. SANATH CMD
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:-
3, MIDDLETON STREET, POST BOX NO. 9229,
KOLKATA-700071, WEST BENGAL
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
3. MR. MITTAR SINGH
SURVEYOR THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
R/O 1336, 1ST FLOOR (BACK SIDE)  SECTOR -4 , GURGOAN, HARYANA                                                                                              

                                                                                                                 …..OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                              ORDER                                       

Rekha Rani, President

1. Sh. Jaspal Singh proprietor of Milan transport Road Lines filed the instant complaint  ( in short the complainant)  filed  the instant complaint  U/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  as amended up to date (in short the Act) alleging  therein that  he is carrying on transport business for 40 years and  is a leading transporter. He insured vehicle bearing no. HR -55M-1994 make Eicher with  the National Insurance Company Limited (in short the OP) vide policy no. 360500/31/14/6300004939   which was valid from May 2005. The insured  vehicle met  with an accident on 25.05.2015 at Bawal, Rewari  District, Haryana and complainant has suffered a loss of  about Rs. 3.5 lacs.  After persistent follow ups and repeated  reminders  complainant received an e-mail  dated 08.09.2015 from Mr. Goel to the effect that claim of Rs. 55,425/- was passed by OP against total claim of Rs. 2 lacs. Complainant protested against the same vide his email dated 09.09.2015. OP revised the amount of  claim from Rs 55,425/- to Rs 66,747/- which it transferred in the account of the complainant illegally on 23.06.2016 without intimation to the complainant. The instant complaint is filed to direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,31,253/- towards balance claim amount with interest @ 18% p.a till the date of payment, compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for causing mental agony  and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation cost.
2. On receipt of notice of this complaint OP appeared and contested  the claim vide its written statement pleading therein that the complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not a consumer. It is stated that policy of insurance was issued for commercial purposes. It is also stated that total assessed loss amount of Rs. 66,747/- has already been credited to the account of complainant through NEFT on 22.06.2016 in full and final settlement of his claim as assessed by the surveyor.  It is denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP.
3. Both the parties have adduced evidence by way of affidavits. We have heard Mr. G.S. Sharma  counsel for complainant and Mr Sanjay Kumar counsel for OP and have perused case file.
4. It is not in dispute that OP issued Goods Carrying Commercial Vehicle (open) Policy & package policy bearing no. 360500/31/14/6300004939   in respect of vehicle no.HR-55-M-1994   for the period 13.01.2015 to 12.01.2016. The OP has vehemently pleaded that the insurance policy having been issued for commercial purpose ,the complainant is not a consumer and therefore the complaint does not lie under the Act.  The vehicle is admittedly a goods carrying commercial vehicle, the complainant is a commercial company engaged in transport business as mentioned in para 1 of the complaint by the complainant himself.
5. In  Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industrial Instituted 1995 (3) SCC 583 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that purchase of vehicle for commercial purpose would exclude the claimant from the definition of customer. Since the complainant did not buy the vehicle in question exclusively  for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment  the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d)  of the Act and is accordingly not entitled to file a complaint under the Act.
6. In Crompton Greaves Limited & Anr. vs Daimler Chrysler India Private Ltd & Ors CC No. 51/2016 National Commission vide its order dated 08.07.2016  while relying on the judgment in Laxmi Engineering Works (supra) observed that if vehicle is purchased  and used for commercial purpose  the case is not covered under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.  It cannot be disputed that in this case the vehicle in question was purchased for earning profits.  Accordingly the complaint is disposed off being not maintainable under the Act . Copy of this order be sent  to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

                      Announced on this 6^th   Day of April 2018.