By : SRI SWADES RANJAN RAY, President.

            This is a case for realization of Insurance claim filed by the complainant.

            Brief facts of the case is that the complainant is the registered owner  of a vehicle being No. WB 34A 9764 (Omni Bus) having Engine No. GHC4G75395 and Chasis No. A1WG2GHKC2G82075. The complainant took an insurance policy against the said vehicle from the OP being Policy No. VPC0701116000101 for the period  from 13.08.2016 to the midnight of 12.08.2017 with the insurance value of Rs. 4,00,000/-.  Son of the complainant namely Pradyut Dhal was the driver of said vehicle and he also used to look after the said vehicle. The vehicle was parked at village Barbahala under Kolaghat PS on 16.03.2017 at about 11.30 PM.  But on the next date on 17.03.2017 said vehicle was found missing., the driver lodged a PS Case at Kolaghat PS. being case No. 86/2017 dated 17.03.2017 U/Sec 379 of the IPC. The complainant demanded the insurance claim from the OP as the vehicle was stolen by the miscreants.

            The OP  Insurance Co. contested the case by filing written version  and stated that as the complainant violated the terms of the insurance policy as it was used for commercial purpose, the complainant is not entitled to get  any insurance claim. In the written version the OP insurance Co.  stated that this complaint petition is not maintainable  either in the facts or in law as the claim of the complainant  was rightly repudiated as the private vehicle was being used  for commercial purpose (against the litigation  to the use) of the policy.

            On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the issues require consideration is (i) whether the complaint is maintainable and (ii) whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for.

                                                                        DECISION WITH REASONS.

            We have carefully gone through the contents of the complaint petition, the written version and the questionnaires and answers thereto filed by the complainant and also the written notes of argument filed by the OP Insurance Co. Considered.

            At the time of argument the Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that it is immaterial to discuss whether the vehicle was used for commercial purpose or not, the fact is that the vehicle had been stolen and the complainant will get the insurance coverage as per agreement between the complainant and the OP Insurance Co.

            Ld. Advocate for the complainant referred a decision reported in 4(2008) CPJ (i) SC page 1 and contended that – Vehicle has been snatched or stolen “ In case of theft  of vehicle breach of condition  is not germane.  The Appellant Insurance Co.  is liable to indemnify  the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained a comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insured . The Respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy the Appellant Insurance Co. ought to have settled the claim on ‘non standard basis’ but the Insurance Co. cannot repudiate  the claim in Toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft .

            Referring the above judgment the Ld advocate for the complainant submitted that there is no scope for repudiation of the claim of the complainant.

            In reply the Ld. Counsel for the OP submitted that where there is violation of the Insurance conditions, the Insurance Co.  has no liability to pay the insured money. In this regard the Ld. advocate for the OP has referred a decision reported in 2015 (4) CPR  page 129 (NC) and submitted that consumer does not include persons who availed of such service for commercial purpose. On the basis of this decision the Ld. Advocate for the OP Insurance Co. has submitted that  the Co. is not  responsible for payment  of the insurance coverage.

           I have carefully perused  the decision cited by the Ld. Advocate for the OP Insurance Co. wherein I find that the complainant Co. entered into a contract  with M/S. Bear Logistics,  LLC having its  office in Florida, for the supply of 2000 MT of scrap.  Such Co. is not the consumer since the transaction for import of scrap was for commercial purpose and earning profits by the complainant Co. For the reason the complainant is not a consumer as per definition of Sec 2(d)  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence according to this reference, the insurance Co. is not liable to pay the insured money as the Insurance Co. is a juristic person and not a natural person. 

            So, in my view the reference made by the Ld. advocate for the OP Insurance Co. is totally different from the facts an circumstances of this present case. In my view this reference will not affect the instant complaint case. So, I do not rely on the decision cited by the Ld. Advocate for the OP. Rather I rely on the decision cited by the ld. Advocate for the complainant as mentioned above along with the judgment  referred in 2010(1) CPR 99 (NC)( and 2016(II) CPR 899 (NC). 

            In the result,  his complaint case succeeds.

            However considering the facts and circumstances of this case  I do not find any reason to allow any compensation to the complainant.

Both the points are answered accordingly.

           Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/179 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest  against the OP .

 The Opposite Party Insurance Co. is directed to pay  the complainant the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ Rs 4.5 % pa from the date of filing of this claim petition  till full realization along with litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- within two months from the date of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution through the process of law.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.