DHARAMBIR filed a consumer case on 10 Mar 2016 against OIC in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/961/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 07 Apr 2016.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No : 961 of 2015
Date of Institution: 02.11.2015
Date of Decision : 10.03.2016
Dharambir s/o Sh. Girraj Singh, Resident of Sohna Road, Palwal, District Palwal, Haryana.
Appellant/Complainant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Kalra Niwas, 2nd Floor, G.T. Road, Palwal, District Palwal, through its Divisional Officer/Principal Officer.
Respondent/Opposite Party
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.
Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member
Present: Shri Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for appellant.
Shri S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent.
O R D E R
NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)
This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated March 26th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed.
2. Dharambir-complainant was owner of truck bearing registration No.HR-30-F-0326. The truck was insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, for the period December 26th, 2012 to December 25th, 2013, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-4, for Rs.9,32,000/-. It met with an accident on May 28th, 2013. The Insurance Company was immediately informed. He spent Rs.3,45,950/- on the repair of truck. He filed claim with the Insurance Company, but the same was repudiated.
3. The Insurance Company filed reply and submitted that complaint was not maintainable on account of concealment of material facts. It was also denied that truck met with an accident.
4. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the grounds that complainant had earlier filed two complaints before the District Forum with regard to accident of his two trucks bearing No.HR38M-3536 and HR55G-3679. Since the complainant was owner of three trucks including the present, it proves that trucks were being plied for commercial purpose and as such the complainant was not a ‘consumer’.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has urged that purpose of obtaining insurance was not commercial and it hardly matters that he was owner of two more trucks and on that account, the complaint could not have been dismissed.
6. Admittedly, complainant got his truck insured from the Insurance Company and obtaining services of Insurance Company for getting the truck insured, does not fall within the purview of ‘commercial purposes’. District Forum fell in error in holding that since the truck was being plied for commercial purpose, he was not entitled to the benefits of insurance. The truck may be run for commercial purpose but for obtaining service of Insurance Company for getting the truck insured does not fall within the purview of ‘commercial purpose’ and complaint is maintainable. Consequently, appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The case is remitted to the District Forum, to decide it afresh on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.
7. Record of the District Forum alongwith a copy of this order be sent.
8. The statutory amount of Rs.2750/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant/complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
9. Copy of this order be sent to all the District Fora in the State of Haryana.
Announced 10.03.2016 | Diwan Singh Chauhan Member | B.M. Bedi Judicial Member | Nawab Singh President |
CL/UK
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.