DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

                                        ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/ 129/2014

No. DF/ Central/

SH. HARI KISHAN
S/O SH. MULKHRAJ
R/O A-56, TYAGI ENCLAVE,
MOHAN GARDEN, UTTAM NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110059.
 

                                                                                      ……..COMPLAINANT          

 VERSUS

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
E-8, EPIP, RIICO, SITAPUR,
JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022
ALSO AT:
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT
1001, LGF, NAIWALAN,
ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, KAROL BAGH,
NEW DELHI-110005.
                                                                                                …..OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                              ORDER                                       

Rekha Rani, President

1. Mr. Hari Kishan ( 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 had  purchased  an insurance policy bearing no.  101026/31/13/017053 from Shri Ram General Insurance Ltd (in short the OP) for his vehicle bearing no. HR-55D-8813 for the period 09.01.2013 to 08.01.2014  and had paid a premium of Rs. 18925/- in respect of the same. On  the night of 04.07.2013 when the vehicle  was being plied by Sh. Pramod Kumar  the same was stolen.  The factum of theft came to the notice of the complainant in the morning of 05.07.2013 through Mr. Pramod Kumar. The complainant lodged complaint with the local police vide FIR no.276/2013 U/s 379 at P.S. Hari Nagar, Delhi. The complainant filed his claim bearing no. 10000/31/14/C/017046  dated 05.07.2013 along with requisite documents with the OP. The vehicle is financed by M/s Vanchal Finvest Pvt Ltd and the same is hypothecated with the financer.The claim was repudiated by the OP. Untraced report qua the vehicle in question filed by P.S. Hari Nagar was accepted by concerned M.M. , Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vide order dated 13.11.2013. The complainant served legal notice dated 28.01.2014 upon the OP claiming value of the vehicle Rs. 3,30,000/-.   The same has not been paid. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of incident i.e. 05.07.2013 till realization and  Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment and agony.
2. On receipt of notice of this complaint OP appeared and contested  the claim vide its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is not  maintainable before the consumer forum as the vehicle is  a commercial vehicle and is being used for commercial purpose and not for earning livelihood and therefore complainant is not a consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of the  Act. It is also stated that the complainant  had  no insurable interest in the vehicle on the day of alleged loss as he had already sold his vehicle to Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Gullu Ram and few months later the vehicle was sold to Sh. Pramod Kumar. It is also stated that the incident of theft occurred on 04.07.2013 while FIR was lodged on 07.07.2013.  It is alleged that the  delay  in lodging in FIR after 3 days is fatal.
3. We have heard Sh. Vikas Sehgal counsel for complainant , Sh.                          Dheeru Nigam counsel for OP1 and Mr. Mukesh Singh, AR of OP2.
4. In replication  complainant has stated that the vehicle in question is a light goods vehicle which was being driven by him under certain arrangement with Sh. Pramod Kumar. Nowhere in his complaint he has stated that he purchased and used the vehicle in question exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self employment. In para 5 of the complaint it is stated that on 04.07.2013 when the vehicle was stolen it was being plied by Sh. Pramod Kumar under certain arrangement between him and the complainant. Even when an objection was taken by the OP that the vehicle is commercial and is being used by the complainant for commercial purpose, the complainant in his  replication did not clarify as to how the vehicle was purchased and used by him for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self employment. He has simply stated that the vehicle was purchased for the sake of his livelihood and was being driven by him under some arrangement with Pramod Kumar. What is that  arrangement between complainant and Pramod Kumar regarding purchase and usage of the vehicle is not clarified. The vehicle in question is  TATA 407 tempo which is  a commercial vehicle and has a national transport permit. It was being plied for commercial purposes as is evident from the contents of the FIR bearing no.276/2013 dated  07.07.2013 PS Hari Nagar which was  lodged by Pramod Kumar. It is stated by the informant Pramod Kumar that he was doing transport work and he has TATA 407 tempo bearing no. HR 55 D 8813 which is being plied by driver Prakash. It is also stated that  driver Prakash remains with the vehicle. It is also stated that the unloaded vehicle is daily parked at Maya Enclave Bijli Daftar and it was parked there on the date of theft.  The said statement of Pramod Kumar clearly proves that the vehicle is a commercial vehicle which is used for commercial purposes. It is being plied by professional driver namely Prakash  and Pramod Kumar is engaged in transport business.
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       Day  of March 2018.