Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/70/2016

P V Industries - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Neeraj Giri

19 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 70 of 2016

                                                                                                                 Date of institution : 29.07.2016                                                                                                                                                     Date of decision    : 19.05.2017

P.V. Industries, G.T.Road, Alour, Khanna, District Ludhiana, through its Partner Sh. Dinesh Kumar.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch at above Bank of  India Building, G.T.Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2.  Padam Motor Pvt. Ltd., 185 Industrial Area, Phase-I,Chandigarh (U.T.).

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer  Protection Act.                                                  

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President        

 Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :  Sh. Neeraj Giri, Adv. counsel for the complainant.            

             Sh.N.K. Sharma, Adv.Cl. for OPs No.1.

               Opposite Party No.2 exparte

 

 

 ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, P.V. Industries, G.T.Road, Alour, Khanna, District Ludhiana, through its Partner Sh. Dinesh Kumar, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant got insured its Cruze Cheverolet bearing No.PJP-78 having Engine No.1375641, Chassis No.007928 Model 2010, from OP No.1, vide cover note dated 04.10.2013 and policy No.2006043113P104152818 for the period from 08.10.2013 to 07.10.2014. On 23.02.2014 the said car met with an accident at the way of Sector 9 to Sector 26 as the same became unbalanced and hit the divider of the road. The said car was damaged and was not in a condition to ply on the road. The DDR No.37 dated 23.02.2014 was got registered at P.S.Sector 26, Chandigarh and after that OP No.1 was also intimated regarding the said accident. The complainant requested OP No.1 for the payment of insurance claim of the said vehicle, who sent its Surveyor, namely; Rakesh Saini, who made an estimate of Rs.6,00,000/- on dated 25.02.2014. After the said estimate, the complainant fulfilled all the formalities of the company to release the insurance claim. Thereafter, complainant got repaired the said vehicle from OP No.2 by spending the amount of Rs.4,95,000/-, but officials of OP No.1 refused to pay the same. The complainant also served a legal notice on OPs through counsel but all in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for directing OP No.1 to pay Rs.4,95,000/- as insured amount, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                   Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but OP No.2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.         The complaint is contested by OP No.1, who filed its written reply. In reply to the complaint OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the claim of the complainant was found contrary to terms and conditions of the policy and the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. As regards the facts of the complaint, OP No.1 stated that after lodging the claim by the complainant, it duly appointed its panel surveyor for inspection and survey. Thereafter OP No.1 repeatedly demanded/informed, vide letter dated 08.01.2015, to supply original Registration Certificate (R.C.) and verification report, but the complainant failed to supply the copy of Registration Certificate of car in question. Therefore, OP No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant as "No Claim". Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.07.2016 i.e. after 1 ½ years from the repudiation of the claim by OP No.1 on the ground of non production of R.C. of the vehicle in question. As per conditions of insurance policy, vide condition No.7, it has been specifically stated that if the insurance company repudiates the claim and no suit/case has been filed within 12 months from the date of repudiation of claim before court of law, then in that case the company would not be held liable to pay the claim. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by OP No.1, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part its part. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   In order to prove its case, the complainant tendered in evidence authority letter Ex. C-1, copy of insurance cover note Ex. C-2, copy of claim intimation Ex.C-3, copy of estimate Ex. C-4, copy of invoice dated 18.05.2014 Ex. C-5, copy of receipt Ex. C-5A, copy of legal notice Ex. C-6, original receipt Ex. C-7, certified copy of DDR dated 23.02.2014 Ex. C-8, copy of invoice dated 22.11.2011 Ex. C-9, copy of account statement Ex. C-10, copy of insurance cover notes Ex. C-11, C-12 & C-12A, affidavit of Dinesh Kumar Ex. C-13, copy of RC of the vehicle in question Ex. C-14, envelope Ex.C-15 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence true copies of documents i.e. Insurance policy Ex. OP1/1, letter dated 08.01.2015 Ex. OP1/2, envelope Ex. OP1/3, verification report Ex. OP1/4, report issued by licensing authority Ex. OP1/5, DL Ex. OP1/6, verification report regarding RC along with report of DTO Ex. OP1/7 & OP1/8, summary particular Ex. OP1/9, survey report Ex. OP1/10, claim intimation form Ex.OP1/11, reply to legal notice Ex. OP1/12, postal receipt Ex. OP1/13, affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Kumar, Assistant Manager, Ex. OP1/14 and closed the evidence.

6.                   Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant in an arbitrary manner without taking into consideration the factual position. Learned counsel while arguing reiterated his pleadings.

7.                   On the other hand, Learned counsel for OP No.1 submitted that his preliminary objections be decided with regard to the maintainability of the present complaint before adjudicating the same on merits. He stated that the complainant is not a consumer as the said vehicle was registered in the name of company and hence the same cannot be stated to be used for the purpose of earning his livelihood.

8.                   After going through the pleadings, evidence, oral as well as written submissions, we find force in the contentions of the Learned counsel for the OPs. It has come to our notice that Hon’ble National Commission in the case of General Motors India Pvt.Ltd Vs G.S.Fertilizers (P) Ltd, F.A No.723 of 2006 & F.A.No.736 of 2006,decided on 07/02/2013, has observed in Para no.6 ;

“Since the vehicle had been purchased by a private limited company i.e Respondent-Complainant for use of its Managing Director ,it was obvious for a ‘commercial purpose’ and not for the purpose of earning livelihood by self-employment. Respondent-Complainant, therefore, did not fall within the purview of the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and complaint was not maintainable.”

In Para no.9, Hon’ble National Commission has observed;

“We agree with Appellants contention that this clearly amounts to its purchase for a ‘commercial purpose’ since the Managing Director of a private limited Company would obviously not use this vehicle for self-employment to earn his livelihood but for purpose as a perk of his office.”

9.                   Accordingly, in view of the observation of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as General Motors India Pvt.Ltd Vs G.S.Fertilizers (P) Ltd,(Supra) complainant- company does not fall within the purview of the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, thus the complaint is not maintainable.

10.                 Hence the present complaint is disposed off with the direction to the complainant to approach the appropriate court of law, as the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The time spent for pursuing the complaint before this Forum be excluded for the purpose of limitation. All the original and necessary documents placed on record before this Forum be also returned to the complainant. A copy of the complaint be retained for record.

11.                  The arguments on the complaint were heard on 05.05.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:19.05.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)

President

 

(Inder Jit)

 Member