Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/140

Achhar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Calim Manager, Reliance General Insruance - Opp.Party(s)

Pramod Kumar

16 Jan 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-11-10-2017

Date of final hearing-16-01-2023

 Date of Order-16-01-2023

Case No. 140/2017

Achhar Singh S/o- Joga Singh,

R/o- Sardar Colony, Chas

P.O & P.S- Chas,

 District- Bokaro, Jharkhand, Pin- 827001

Vs.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

 3^rd Floor, Chanderkali Bhawan M-5,

City Centre, Sector-IV Bokaro Steel City

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                   Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

1. Complainant is absent, on the other hand O.P. is present through his Learned Counsel. None turned up on behalf of complainant on repeated call. It reveals from the record that this case is pending at the stage of argument in which complainant is absent since long therefore, heard argument of Ld. Counsel for O.P. In the given facts as per provision of Section 38 (3) (c) Consumer Protection Act. 2019 case has been taken up for decision on merit on the basis of materials available on record.

 

2. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. for payment of Rs. 4,91,000/- on account of repair cost of the vehicle and to pay Rs. 16,000/-  as compensation  for shifting the vehicle from spot to Chas and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.
3. Complainant’s case in brief is that he is owner of TATA Truck JH09P-3013 which was insured with O.P. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 12.12.2016 to 11.12.2017 for IDV Rs. 9,94,600/-. Further case is that on 22.04.2017 while said truck was returning to Chas met with an accident due to brake  failure and hit with another heavy vehicle of same direction and got damaged its front portion for which Garbeta Paschim Medinapur Police was informed however the informant and his cleaner Sandip Mahto saved their life by jumping from the vehicle. Inspite of service of legal notice no response was shown by the O.P. hence this case has been filed with prayer as mentioned above, after repair of the vehicle.
4. O.P. appeared and has filed W.S. mentioning therein that as per complaint petition complainant is not the consumer because he himself admits that vehicle was being used for commercial business purpose. Further reply is that inspite of such accident no police case has been lodged and there is no MVI report regarding accident and photographs are not disclosing the number of the truck of the complainant. Further reply is that it is surprising that complainant or his cleaner have not suffered any injury which shows that there is no such incidence hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.
5. Point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed ?
6. On perusal of the papers annexed with the complaint petition it appears that road permit was valid till 05.03.2016 and alleged occurrence of accident took place on 22.04.2017 therefore, is shows that on the date of occurrence vehicle was being run without valid permit. There is no any FIR by the complainant before the local Police and vehicle concerned has not been inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. As per complaint petition brake of the vehicle was failed but there is no such evidence on record to prove it. It is very much surprising that the photographs of the vehicle are showing that there is huge damage to the front part of the vehicle but neither the driver nor cleaner have sustained any scratch on their body which creates serious doubt about the alleged occurrence. As per complaint petition vehicle itself was being used for commercial business, hence complainant does not come within purview of consumer. In light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant has not proved his case for grant of any relief. Accordingly this point is being decided against the complainant.
7.  In light of above discussion case is dismissed on merit and parties shall bear their own costs.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

                                                                                               

 

 

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

•