National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Manek Naushir Tadiwala vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 9 July, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 770 OF 2012 (From the Order dated 28.07.2011 in Appeal No. 344/2007 of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Manek Naushir Tadiwala Petitioner (Partner) AEM Travels S/21, Avambagh, Navsari Gujarat Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent 7/447, Ambika Niketan, 1st Floor Sayaji Road Near Tower People Bank Navsari BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Priank Adhyaru, Advocate Pronounced on : 9th July, 2012 ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER The complaint in this case was filed by Manek Naushir Tadiwala, partner of AEM Travels before the Navsari District Consumer Forum in complaint No.174/2001 which was dismissed by the District Forum on 16.9.2006. The appeal filed by the complainant before the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission for short) was also dismissed by its impugned order dated 28.7.2011. This revision petition has been filed to challenge the aforesaid order of the State Commission.
2. The facts of this case are like this. The complainant/petitioner who is a partner of AEM Travels and is doing the business of letting vehicles on rent insured the Ambassador car in question bearing Registration No.GJ 15U 7778 with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. who are respondent herein for the period from 4.8.1996 to 3.8.1997 for an amount of Rs.2,45,000/-. On 25.5.1997, three people took this vehicle on rent and hence the vehicle was given to them along with driver of the complainant firm. On 26.5.1997, when the driver of the vehicle did not come at home, a complaint was lodged with the Navsari Police Station and the respondent Co. was also intimated about the non-return of the vehicle by filing the claim. A notice was also published in the newspaper for tracing the driver. Since there was no information about the driver or the vehicle, the complainant registered an FIR bearing No.86/1997 on 1.8.1997 for offences under section 365,394,328 and 119 IPC. The matter was also presented before the Sessions Court under case No.153/1997. In the meanwhile, the petitioner repeatedly visited the office of the respondent Co. requesting it to pay the claim of the loss of the vehicle. The respondent Co. also wrote to the police station to release the vehicle which seems to have been recovered by the police in the meanwhile. According to the petitioner since his claim about the loss of the insured vehicle was not settled and the vehicle was reportedly lying in the police station but with a different Registration No.GJ 5 Y 9857 and yet he was being pressurized to take the car, there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Co. and hence he filed the aforesaid consumer complaint before the District Forum. The respondent Co. took the preliminary objection that the petitioner was using the vehicle for business purposes and hence is not a consumer within the definition of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum, after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that even though the car had been recovered after some period, the accused persons had absconded and could not be caught and also that the registration number of the car recovered by the police is GJ 5Y 9857 which is of Surat is different from that of the vehicle which was insured, held that the case involved difficult questions of law and facts and hence should be tried by a Civil Court and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, as stated above, the same was also dismissed by the State Commission by its impugned order. It is in these circumstances that the complainant has approached the National Commission through the present revision petition.
3. We have heard Mr. P. Adhyaru, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record placed before us. It is to be noted that the State Commission while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has made the following observations in its impugned order:-
After hearing the arguments of both the parties we have come to the conclusion that no decision should be taken regarding the complaint and the Additional Sessions Judge has in case No.153/1997 which was decided on 27.10.1999 should be taken by the complainant from the police station and the Sessions Court had on complainant furnishing a bond of Rs.2,40,000/- had directed the possession of the car should be given to the complainant. If the complainant has taken the possession of the car then there is nothing remaining in the present complaint. The complainant had stated that the stolen car and the car which is in the police station is separate is countered by the fact that the chasis no. and the engine no. are one and the complainant has taken the car which belongs to him and I pass the following order.
ORDER The present Appeal is dismissed and the order given in Complaint No.174/2001 dated 16.9.2006 is still operational.
4. We agree with the view taken by the Fora below and do not see any ground to interfere with the same considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
....
(J.M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER SS/