O R D E R
(Per Shri Jayant S. Prabhu, President)
By this Order we shall dispose the Complaint filed by the Complainant as against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service.
…2/-
- The case of the Complainant in brief is that he is a businessman conducting the business of fabrication and having place of business at Verna Industrial Estate, Verna Goa. Being businessman he has to transport fabricated goods from place to place according to the orders given by his clients, as such according to him he purchased a Pickup Tata-Ace bearing registration No. GA-06-T-0224.
- According to the Complainant initially the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. in the year 2007-08. Thereafter the Opposite Party No.1 requested the Complainant to transfer the insurance with the Opposite Party No.2 as the Opposite Party No.1 had ‘nexus’ with the Opposite Party No.2.
- As per the agreement between the Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant the Opposite Party No.1 should pay the premium and renew the insurance policy. According to the Complainant the vehicle was insured in the year 2009-10 with the Opposite Party No.2, and as such on insuring the vehicle with the Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.1 should have delivered the copy of the insurance policy to the Complainant. However, according to the Complainant he was not informed about the insurance premium paid for the year 2009-10 and was accordingly not issued the copy of the insurance policy which he is entitled for.
- According to the Complainant he is put to great hardship in the year 2009-10 as he could not ply his vehicle on the road due to the non-delivery of the insurance policy. According to the Complainant he inquired orally about the insurance policy with the Opposite Party No.1, however he could not receive any satisfactory answer from the Opposite Party No.1. According to the Complainant legal notices were also issued through his lawyer to the Opposite Party No.1 who opted not to answer to the notices.
- According to the Complainant as he could not ply the vehicle he could not even pay monthly installments to the Opposite Party. According
...3/-
to him on 09.04.2009 as his vehicle required urgent repairs he took out the vehicle, when it was stopped by R.T.O., Margao and a challan of Rs. 2,700/- was issued for not carrying necessary documents including insurance policy.
- It is the case of the Complainant that as he was deprived of the insurance policy by the Opposite Party No.1 he could not even get the fitness test done of the vehicle for the year 2009-10. As per the Complainant he has lost almost Rs. 1,75,000/- in keeping the vehicle inoperative and also due to the negligence of the Opposite Party No.1 in not issuing the insurance policy for the year 2009-10.
- The Complainant ultimately prays for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- at the rate of 18% from the Opposite Parties and also for direction to provide him with the insurance policy certificate.
- The Opposite Party No.1 has filed written version, while we do not find any written version of Opposite Party No.2 on record.
- As per the written version of the Opposite Party No.1 the Complainant is a businessman as admitted by him and therefore the Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover according to them there is no averment in the complaint about the Complainant being self employed with a view to earn his livelihood. The present complaint therefore requires to be dismissed on the point of jurisdiction.
- As per the Opposite Party No.1 they had granted loan for the Complainant to purchase the said vehicle and the loan was to be repaid in 47 installments with interest on or before 21.12.2010. As per the Opposite Party No.1 although amount of the insurance policy was to be paid by the Opposite Party No.1, the documents pertaining to the policy were to be collected by the Complainant from the Insurance Company. According to the Opposite Party No.1 they were neither
…4/-
required to collect the policy from the Opposite Party No.2 nor the Opposite Party No.1 was required to deliver the policy to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 was required to pay the amount towards the said policy and accordingly they have done it so in time.
- According to the Opposite Party No.1 the Complainant is a defaulter and failed and refused to pay the installment to the Opposite Party No.1 as agreed by him and as such the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant with oblique motives and with intention to avoid making payments towards the loan installments.
- As per the Opposite Party No.1 even if the Complainant had not received the insurance policy he could have very well obtained a copy of the insurance policy from the Opposite Party No.2 immediately upon the expiry of the insurance policy for the year 2008-09. The Opposite Party No.1 also further states that the cheques issued by the Complainant towards monthly installments returned dishonoured and due to the defaults in making monthly installments the vehicle was earlier repossessed by the Opposite Party No.1 in terms of agreement.
- According to the Opposite Party No.1 they have paid the insurance premium for the year 2009-10 and also for the year 2010-11 and accordingly the Complainant was notified about the said payment.
- It is also the case of the Opposite Party No.1 that the challan was issued to the Complainant not only because of the insurance policy but also the vehicle has been plied on the road without having copy of the registration certificate and other documents. Ultimately the Opposite Party No.1 submits that the Complainant has indulged in a speculative venture by filing the present complaint and therefore the present complaint requires to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
…5/-
- Both the parties relied upon number of documents in support of their case and have also filed their Affidavits-in-evidence and written arguments. The Complainant has also filed a Clarification dated 23.01.2010 which was given entry on 23.01.2015.
- There are two points which are required to be answered in the present complaint. The first point is as to whether the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) and if the Complainant is a consumer then whether the Complainant has proved the deficiency-in-service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
- In support of their case the Opposite Party No.1 has relied on the decision of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in III (1995) CPJ 197. As per the said citation, if there is no material on record to show that the setting system (machine) was purchased by the Complainant for his self employment with a view to earn his livelihood, then the Complainant is not a consumer.
In the present case the Complainant himself submits that he is a businessman and that he has been carrying the business of fabrication goods and transporting them to his clients from his place of business situated at Verna Industrial Estate, Verna. There is absolutely no averment in the complaint suggesting self employment with a view to earn his livelihood. We are therefore of the opinion that the Complainant cannot be classified as the consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
- The second point is as to whether there is deficiency-in-service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Admittedly the Opposite Party No.1 has honoured their obligation in paying the premium to the Opposite Party No.2 . From the record it is also observed that the Complainant was notified about the payment done by the Opposite Party No.1 to the
…6/-
Opposite Party No.2 about the insurance premium. As such it was for the Complainant to collect the duplicate copy of the insurance police incase the Opposite Party No.2 has failed to issue him the insurance policy. The cock-bull story of the Complainant about not plying his vehicle due to the non-issuance of the insurance policy does not impress us. We feel that this story is advanced by the Complainant in order to avoid the payments of installments to the Opposite Party No.1. As suggested by the Opposite Party No.1 from the copy of the challan that is issued to the Complainant we find the Complainant has been challaned by the R.T.O., Margao not only because the Complainant was not carrying the insurance policy but he was also using the vehicle without registration certificate. As such the story advanced by the Complainant is not plausible. Moreover there is nothing on record brought by the Complainant to show that he has sustained losses due to non operation of his vehicle. We therefore find no merit in the complaint and as such the complaint requires to be dismissed. Hence we pass the following order:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed with no orders as to cost.
(Shri Jayant S. Prabhu)
President
(Ms. Savita G. Kurtarker)
Member
( Ms. Cynthia A. Colaco)
Member
