RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No.1156 of 2000
Deo Prakash Gupta s/o Sri Om Prakash Gupta,
R/o 31/41, Behari Vilas, Tundla,
District Firozabad. ….. Appellant.
Versus
New India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having its Divisional Office at Dayalbagh Road,
New Agra, Agra-282 005 .…Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Jugul Kishor, Member.
Sri Rajesh Chaddha for the appellant.
Sri Anand Bhargava for the respondent.
Date 11.12.2014
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.4.2000 passed by the Ld. DCDRF-I, Agra in complaint case No.1404 of 1993, the appellant/complainant Sri Deo Prakash Gupta has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order, whereby his complaint was dismissed and he was permitted to seek remedy in the Civil Court if he so desires, for redressal of his grievances is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. Therefore, it has been prayed that the appeal be allowed and consequently, the impugned judgment and order be set
(2)
aside and he be awarded the relief sought by him in his complaint otherwise he will suffer irreparable loss. We have heard the parties and have gone through the records.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant/complainant Sri Deo Prakash Gupta was the owner of Jeep bearing registration no.MP 078- 5082 having Engine no.DN 05044. The Jeep was registered at the office of RTO, Gwalior (MP) on 20.1.1991 and was being used as a taxi. It has been submitted that the RTO, Lucknow allowed him to ply the Jeep as a taxi. The vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Cover Note No.254405 which was effective from 13.2.1991 to 12.2.1992. It has further been alleged that he engaged Sri Sanjay Khan as driver of the vehicle. On 3.1.1992, Sri Sanjay Khan was waiting at Tundla Crossing for picking up passengers where he was approached by two persons. They hired the vehicle for going to Farah, District Firozabad. Thereafter, nothing was heard from Sri Sanjay Khan about his welfare or whereabouts of the vehicle. His efforts to trace him out or the vehicle failed and consequently, he lodged an FIR with the police on 5.1.1992 and, thereafter, the matter was reported to S.P., Firozabad on the next date. He also reported the matter to DIG, Agra Range; and thereafter informed the respondent National Insurance Co. as well as the RTO, Gwalior. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by him for payment of the insured amount. However, the same claim was repudiated and, therefore, the appellant/complainant filed complaint case no.1404 of
(3)
1993 before the Ld. DCDRF-I, Agra. The Forum below, after hearing the parties at length, passed a well discussed order in which it opined that the case requires exhaustive adducement of evidence by the parties. The complaint was dismissed on merit on 24.4.2000. However, the Forum below also observed that the complainant can seek remedy in the Civil Court if he so desires for redressal of his grievances.
We have gone through the records carefully. Admittedly, the Forum below, after discussing all the available evidence on record dismissed the complaint on 24.4.2000. However, it was observed by the Forum below that the appellant/complainant can seek remedy in Civil Court if he so desires for redressal of his grievances. Thus, it is not a case under Proviso of Section 12(4) of the Act 68 of 1986. In the light of the above factual matrix, we have gone through the impugned judgment carefully. The Forum below formulated points for determination as to whether the claim was rightly repudiated or not and thereafter, proceeded to discuss all aspects of the matter at length before arriving at the logical conclusion. It observed on the basis of facts, circumstances and evidence available on record that the Jeep was registered as private vehicle but was admittedly being used for commercial purposes as a Taxi. Thus apparently it is not only a case of evasion of taxes but is also a matter relating to unauthorized commercial use of the vehicle as a taxi. In view of the same, the Forum below observed that the repudiation was justified. The Forum below has also
(4)
observed that the appellant suppressed all material informations relating to the purchase of vehicle from Gwalior (MP), using the same on the roads of U.P. without NOC and alleged authorization by the RTO, Lucknow for using it for commercial purposes. The Forum below also observed that during investigation Sri Hamid Khan (father of the driver) informed the police that the Jeep was never stolen but in fact the same was sold by the appellant/complainant to unsocial elements and the driver Sanjay Khan and the helper of the Jeep were infact kidnapped and murdered by the appellant for ulterior motives. An investigation, in this regard, made by the Dy.S.P., CBCID was given due weightage. The case was under investigation till the time of disposal of the case. The Forum below justified the repudiation on the ground that the appellant got his jeep registered as a private vehicle but admittedly, used the same as a taxi which was not permissible. The Forum below, after considering all facts, circumstances and evidence on record dismissed the complaint as stated earlier. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. It appears that the appellant is not purposely approaching the Civil Court or Criminal Court for redressal of his grievances as the investigation has not yet been conclusively finalized and the matter also relates to evasion of taxes. The appeal, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed.
(5)
ORDER
The appeal, being meritless, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with the rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Jugul Kishor)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri
ST G-1 Court No.5
