CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/101/2016
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Sh. Vijay Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Sadhu Ram,
R/o WZ-382, Palam Village,
New Delhi-110015. …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
United India Insurance Company Limited
At-213/215, Namdhari Chambers,
D.B. Gupta, Road Karol Bagh,
Delhi-110005.
Through-Manager/H.O.D. …..OPPOSITE PARTY
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mr. R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
- Instant complaint has been filed by Sh. Vijay Kumar (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended inter-alia pleading therein that he is registered owner of vehicle no. DL-5CK-5182 engine no. 292647, chesis no. 316635 which was duly insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (in short OP) vide policy no. 0404013114P104346933 valid from 17.09.2014 to 16.09.2015 and IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 2,70,000/-. On 21.06.2015 son of complainant namely Shailender Kumar was driving the vehicle when suddenly he noticed smoke coming out of the AC vent of the vehicle. The driver stopped the vehicle and got down from it. He found that there was sparking in the AC Vent and soon the vehicle caught fire and it was burnt. He called number 100 and informed about the incident. Police and fire brigade came at the spot. Incident was reported vide DD no. 85-B at police station Saket, Delhi. Information about burning of the vehicle was also given to OP on the same day.
Complainant approached T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd. and requested them to give an estimate of repairing of the vehicle.T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd. prepared the estimate of repair of the vehicle as Rs. 7,41,535/-.He requested the surveyor to release the said repairing amount in regard to the vehicle in question.The surveyor informed the complainant that the said amount was more than the IDV of the vehicle.The complainant expressed his willingness to accept IDV of the vehicle and handed-over all requisite documents to the surveyor.Complainant visited the office of OP who refused to pay the claim amount.Therefore he sent a legal notice dated 23.02.2016 which was duly served to OP but it did not pay any heed to it.Hence instant complaint was filed seeking direction to the OP to repair the vehicle of the complainant or to pay the IDV of the vehicle (Rs.2,70,000/-), Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses.
- OP appeared and contested the claim. We have heard the complainant and Sh. H.S. Hans, advocate for OP.
- Learned counsel for OP vehemently objected that complainant is not a consumer as vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. He has drawn our attention to the statement of Sh. Shailender Kumar, son of the complainant, recorded on 23.06.2015 vide DD no. 85-B at police station Saket, Delhi wherein it was stated that the vehicle in question was being used as a Taxi.
When we confronted the complainant with this document, our attention was drawn to Annexure-H which is a representation dated 25.09.2015 made by Shailender Kumar to SHO, P.S. Saket wherein it was stated that while narrating incident of his vehicle being destroyed in fire on 21.06.2015, he had mentioned that he was using his vehicle as a taxi which was wrong and that he was using the vehicle for personal purpose.
When we asked the complainant as to how request for rectification in DD entry was sought after about 3 months of recording of DD No. 85B, he did not explain the delay.DD. No. 85B was recorded on 21.06.2015, the date of the incident and the rectification was sought on 25.09.2015 which is after more than 3 months.
- Learned counsel for complainant stated that complainant is a layman and is uneducated so he did not understand the significance of his statement made on 21.06.2015 before the police. The statement made by Shailender Kumar is signed in English so it cannot be said that son of the complainant who made the complaint was uneducated. No educational qualification is required for simply indicating the use of the vehicle. Learned counsel for complainant also argued that statement of Sh. Shailender Kumar was recorded by the investigating officer and Shailender Kumar simply signed it. There was no reason for the investigating officer to write that the vehicle was used as a taxi without having been told by son of the complainant who was driving the vehicle at that time.
- 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 use 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.
- 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. Complainant has nowhere stated that the vehicle was used for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self employment. Accordingly the complaint is disposed of 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 this Day of 2019.
