DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

                                        ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/ 226/2014

No. DF/ Central/

M/s ACE Cabs Pvt Ltd
562, Silver Oak Lane,
Ghitorni, M.G.Road, New Delhi 110030
Through:
(Director Mr.Arjun Julka)

 

                                                                                   ……..COMPLAINANT             

 VERSUS

                               
1. National Insurance Company,
HDFC Bank, Jhandewalan,
New Delhi 110055
2. Samara Hyundai,
B 24 Okhla Indl. Area -I
New Delhi- 110019

                                                                                               …..OPPOSITE PARTIES

                                                              ORDER                                       

Rekha Rani, President

1. Mr.Arjun Julka ,  director  of the complainant company (in short the   complainant) filed  the instant complaint  U/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act)against  National  Insurance Company  Ltd ( in short the OP1)  and M/s Samara Hyundai (in short the OP2)   alleging  therein that  the complainant purchased a Hyundai Accent model 2011  and  obtained comprehensive insurance in respect of the said vehicle from OP1 for an amount of Rs. 3,62,000/- and complainant paid premium of Rs 16,170/-. The policy was   valid for the period 22.06.2013 to 21.06.2014.  The insured vehicle met with an accident on 21.08.2013 at M.B.Road, New Delhi when it  was being driven by the Driver Sh. Shripal Singh who was holding a valid Driving License and intimation about accident of the vehicle was given to   the Police as well as OP1. On direction of OP1 , the car was taken to the workshop of OP2.  The car was badly damaged. After going through the estimate of repair complainant approached OP1 stating that the estimate given by the OP2 was beyond the value of  insured vehicle and it was suggested that since the car was comprehensively insured it would be appropriate that compensation by way of insured value be provided treating the car as total loss. Complainant was shocked to receive the final bill of the repair from OP2 amounting to Rs. 4,21,162/- which was beyond the sum insured.  Both the OPs are stated to be have been indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint seeking direction  to the OPs  to pay to the complainant  a sum of Rs. 3,62,200/- on account of total loss  of the vehicle  with interest from 21.08.2013 to 21.06.2014 @ 18% p.a. , compensation of Rs 30,000/- for causing mental pain and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.
2. On receipt of notice the OP1 appeared and contested  the claim vide its written statement  and has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint stating therein that the car in question was used for commercial purpose by the complainant company.
3. We have heard  Sh Ramanand Raj counsel for complainant and Sh. Amrish Singh Counsel  for OP2.  
4. Profile of complainant company downloaded allegedly from their website is placed on record by OP1 wherein it is stated that the aim of the complainant company was to offer safe and reliable medium  of transport to its customers and it claimed to be one of the India’s  premier transport company. It had all India Permit for tourist transport operations. It  was being driven  by a professional driver at the time of accident. The name of the  complainant company itself indicates that it is engaged in providing transport services to the customers. 
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 company did not buy the car in question exclusively  for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment  the complainant company 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 car is purchased 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       Day  of March 2018.