State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Preeti Anand vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 1 December, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.807 of 2014
Date of institution : 24.06.2014
Date of decision : 01.12.2015
Preeti Anand (Mrs.) w/o Inderpreet Singh, C/o Arnav Roadlines, 461,
Jai Inder Singh Nagar, Truck Stand, Amritsar-143001.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Sr. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO-
93, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.
2. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 103, Bhullar
Market, Amritsar.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
21.10.2013 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Sukaam Gupta, Advocate For the respondents : Shri S.S. Sidhu, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ complainant, Preeti Anand, against the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by her against the respondents/opposite parties, under Section 12 of the First Appeal No.807 of 2014 2 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), was dismissed, on the ground that she does not fall within the definition of "consumer", under the Act.
2. As per the allegations, made in the complaint, the complainant purchased, from opposite party No.1, one "Comprehensive Insurance Policy" for her second hand truck bearing Registration No.PB-02-AW-8686, for Rs.8,99,950/-; which was valid from 16.08.2011 to 15.08.2012. That truck was being owned and operated by her for earning her livelihood and was purchased in the month of August, 2007. She was having valid "Fitness Certificate"
and "National/State Permit" for plying that truck in the States of Punjab and Haryana. On 29.11.2011, her driver, Devinder Singh, parked the same during the night outside the office, situated at 131, Jahajgarh, Truck Stand, Amritsar; from where the same was stolen. The information about the theft was given to the police on 30.11.2011 itself. She was advised by the police to look out/search for the same and registered the formal FIR No.99 on 05.12.2011 in Police Station, Division-B, Amritsar. She submitted her claim with opposite party No.2, along with the requisite papers/documents, as desired by it. It appointed M/s SSA Investigating & Consultancy Agency, Pathankot, vide letter dated 13.12.2011, to investigate the theft. That Investigating Agency submitted the report on 06.02.2012. The documents, so submitted by her with the opposite parties, were got verified regarding the genuineness and authenticity thereof. Opposite party No.1 made recommendation to the Regional Office at Chandigarh for the settlement of the claim, vide letters dated First Appeal No.807 of 2014 3 12.07.2012 and 16.08.2012. The opposite parties kept on making repeated and continuous demand of the documents and last such letter, so received by her, was dated 05.11.2012. Vide that letter, a threat was given to close her claim, in case the documents mentioned therein were not submitted within 15 days. The inaction on the part of the opposite parties to settle her claim amounts to deficiency in service; as a result of which she suffered harassment, agony, misery and financial loss. She prayed for the issuance of the following directions to the opposite parties:-
i) to expedite the settlement of her claim for Rs.8,99,000/-;
ii) not to demand the documents, which are beyond her reach/procurement;
iii) not to charge any expenses for hiring any outside agency of its own choice;
iv) to pay compensation for the sufferings suffered by her at their
hands; and
v) to pay the cost of the complaint.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties-
Insurance Company, who filed joint written reply before the District Forum. It admitted that the complainant had got the truck, in question, insured with it and regarding the theft thereof, she lodged the claim and that the letters, including letter dated 05.11.2012, asking for the documents, were written to her. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it averred that the complainant failed to give intimation to it regarding the alleged theft First Appeal No.807 of 2014 4 immediately; as it was informed about the theft, vide letter dated 07.12.2011, which was received on 08.12.2011. She failed to take proper care and caution, in order to safeguard the truck and there was gross negligence on her part. In-spite of writing a number of letters, the requisite documents were not furnished by her. Besides other documents, they called for the challan in the FIR, so mentioned in the complaint, and the "Untraced Report"; which were essential for processing the claim. All the documents, so demanded from the complainant, were not furnished and, as such, it had no option except to treat the claim as "No Claim" and she was informed accordingly, vide letter dated 15.03.2013. There was no such deficiency in service on its part and the complainant, in order to cover her own lapse and negligence, has filed the present complaint; which is false, frivolous and ambiguous. The same is liable to be dismissed, with special costs, under Section 26 of the Act.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the District Forum committed an illegality, by recording a finding that the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer", as contained in the Act. No such plea was taken up by the opposite parties in their written reply. Without any First Appeal No.807 of 2014 5 evidence on the record, it concluded that the complainant is running a Transport Company and was having a number of trucks. Even if she was running such a Transport Company, the dispute raised in the complaint had nothing to do with her business, as the claim in the complaint was made under the Insurance Policy. As per the settled law, even if the Insurance Policy is obtained regarding the vehicle, which is being used for a commercial purpose, even then the owner thereof falls under the definition of the "consumer". Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that correct findings were recorded by the District Forum, after taking into account the evidence produced on the record and there is no ground for upsetting that well reasoned order.
8. That part of the order of the District Forum, on the basis of which it came to the conclusion that the complainant does not fall under the definition of the "consumer", is reproduced below:-
"Apart from this, complainant in the complaint herself has admitted that she uses to park her trucks in the open in front of her office situated at Jahajgarh, Amritsar, and the complainant has also given her address as "Preeti Anand (Mrs.) W/o Sh. Inderpreet Singh, Care Arnav Road Lines, 461, Jai Inder Singh Nagar, Truck Stand, Amritsar". All this shows that complainant is running transport company First Appeal No.807 of 2014 6 having so many trucks, which proves that the complainant is running a transport company and, as such, she was doing business with the truck in question."
After having carefully gone through the record of the District Forum, we have not been able to find any allegation in the complaint or any evidence on the record, on the basis of which it may be said that the complainant admitted that she used to park her trucks in the open in front of her office situated at Amritsar. It is very much clear from the contents of the complaint that she is alleging herself to be the owner of only the truck, in dispute, and no other truck. The opposite parties neither contended, nor produced any evidence for proving that the complainant owned other trucks also and was running transport business. Such a finding, so recorded by the District Forum, has been recorded against the evidence on the record and is liable to be set aside. Even if it is assumed that the complainant is running some transport business, even then she falls under the definition of the "consumer", so far as the dispute raised in the complaint is concerned; as it is a case where she is claiming the insurance amount under the Policy, which was obtained by her in respect of the truck and that has nothing to do with the transport business. The Insurance Policy was not obtained for commercial purposes. It was wrongly recorded by the District Forum that the complainant does not fall under the definition of the "consumer" and such a finding cannot be sustained.
First Appeal No.807 of 2014 7
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is remanded back to the District Forum for deciding the same on merits.
10. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 16.01.2016. Its records be returned immediately.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER December 01, 2015.
(Gurmeet S)