Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 54.
Instituted on : 23.01.2017.
Decided on : 19.11.2018.
Suresh s/o Kewal Singh r/o Village-Nigana, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., Near Appu Ghar Rohtak through its Manager.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited 301-308, 3rd Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot no.2, Road no.44, Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Basant Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of a Tata Magic vehicle which was insured with the opposite party. The complainant used to drive the said vehicle for transportation of school children and was earning his livelihood with the help of said vehicle. That on 30.12.2013 the alleged vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. After the accident complainant duly informed the opposite parties and the vehicle was got surveyed by the surveyor of opposite party. A case FIR No.379 dated 30.12.2013 was registered. That complainant spent an amount of Rs.46330/- on the repair of his vehicle and had applied for the alleged claim amount from the opposite party. That despite repeated requests of the complainant, opposite parties have not paid the genuine claim of the complainant till date. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.46330/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expensed as prayed in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. OP No.1 was given up by the complainant as per his statement dated 09.03.2017 being unnecessary party. Opposite party No.2 filed its reply submitting therein that the present complaint is pre-mature. That letter dated 22.01.2014 was served upon the complainant requesting him to get the vehicle surveyed. That complainant has never approached the answering respondent for survey of the vehicle, so that surveyor can assess the liability of the insurance company. On merits, it is submitted that the vehicle in question has been registered as a private vehicle, whereas, as per Para no.1 of the complaint, the complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purpose i.e. transportation of the school children’s and earning his livelihood, which shows the commercial use of the vehicle in question. Hence, the complainant cannot be treated as consumer and hence not entitled to file complaint before present Forum. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. That complainant is not entitled for any relief and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.
PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that, the claim of the complainant is pre-mature and the vehicle in question was used for commercial purpose. To prove their contention, opposite parties have placed on record copy of letter Ex.R4 which itself shows that complainant had not yet got the vehicle surveyed and consequently repaired. Moreover, as per copy of policy placed on record as Ex.R1, the vehicle in question was insured under private car package policy, but the same was used by the complainant for commercial purpose i.e. for transportation of school children and this fact is also proved from the FIR Ex.P8. In view of the above documents, placed on record we come to the conclusion that the claim of the complainant is pre-mature and as per policy, claim is not payable. As such the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
7. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.11.2018.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
