Manindra Jha                Vs.              Shriram Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case No. 249/2011

14.11.17

Present:       None for the complainant.

OP is exparte. 

          None was also present on behalf of the complainant on 04.07.2016 and 20.02.2017.

Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter on merits.

The case of the complainant in nutshell is that he had purchased a car bearing No. DL-01-VB-4330 make TATA SUMO VICTA form Mrs. Monika Poddar on 29.09.2010 and the vehicle was insured in her name  with the OP for the period 31.08.2010 till 30.08.2011 for IDV Rs.3,00,000/- however, the vehicle was stolen by someone on 06.10.2010 and FIR was lodged in this regard in Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi. Intimation was sent to the OP who appointed some surveyor but claim of the complainant was not settled. Hence, pleadings deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to OP to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- towards the claim amount, Rs. 80,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and affidavit of Ms. Monika Poddar has been filed in support of the case of the complainant.  

From the perusal of the documents i.e. copy of tourist permit proves on record that the vehicle in question was being used as tourist taxi and it was registered in the name of Ms. Monia Poddar. Therefore, it is not the case of the complainant that the vehicle in question was being used for the purposes of earning of livelihood. Moreover it is crystal clear that on the date of lodge of theft of the vehicle in question, the vehicle was registered in the name of Ms Monika Poddar and the national permit as well as the insurance policy were also in her name.

Except the affidavit of Ms. Monika Poddar, there is no document on the record to show that she had infact sold the vehicle in question to the complainant. Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that he is a ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act or that there was/ is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 14.11.2017.