NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. CHAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 488/2019 dated 05.07.2019.

(2.) In the Complaint Case, it was stated that the Respondent/Complainant was the registered owner of Escorts Tractor-Trolley bearing Registration No. HR-01W-1557 and the same was insured with the Petitioner/Opposite Party, vide policy No. 35350231100100003257 (standard-commercial vehicle package policy valid from 16.07.2010 to 15.07.2011. Unfortunately, on 01.03.2011, the said tractor trolley met with an accident and got totally damaged. Intimation was given to the Petitioner stating all the facts that the car driver received fatal injuries in the said accident, the tractor trolley was taken in possession by the police and was released on superdari after a long delay. After getting the said tractor trolley released on superdari, the Respondent got the cost of repairs assessed from S.B. Trading Company and Jagdev Steel Works. The total estimated cost of repair was Rs. 6,23,207/-. The Respondent lodged the claim with the Petitioner but the claim was not settled. Hence, the Complaint was filed.

(3.) The Petitioner filed Written Statement in which it was stated that the Complaint was not maintainable as there is no relationship of consumer between the parties. Moreover, the Complainant does not come under the preview of the Consumer Protection Act since the alleged insured vehicle was admittedly being used for commercial purposes only. On merits, it was stated that the Respondent himself was responsible for non-payment of the claim as the Respondent failed to supply the estimate of repair, despite receipt of letter dated 20.06.2011, 24.08.2011, 02.11.2011 and 17.01.2011. He did not produce the tractor trolley for survey and never informed about the condition and fate of the tractor. Thus, under these circumstances, the Opposite Party had no option but to close the file as "No claim". The earlier complaint was disposed of with the direction to the Respondent to submit the required documents. After going through the complete set of documents submitted by the Respondent and considering the claim again according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the competent authority, repudiated the claim as the tractor was being used for commercial purposes, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act, as the same was registered and insured only for agricultural purposes. The claim of the Respondent was again considered and repudiated in the light of investigation conducted by the investigator, who confirmed that at the time of the said alleged loss, the said tractor trolley was being used for business. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner and prayed for the dismissal of the present Complaint.