SATYANARAYAN KAMALKUMAR Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The complainant M/s. Satyanarayan Kamal Kumar carries on business in letting out motor vehicles on hire purchase basis. Opposite parties 1,2 and 3 are the United India Insurance Company Limited. Proforma opposite party-4 is the hire purchaser who entered into hire purchase agreement on 3.8.1991 with the complainant. The complainant's case is that he is the sole and absolute owner of Tata Truck Bearing Engine No.692 D01 407 227, Chasis No.344 673 393 670 and temporary Registration No. WB-03-T-1784. The complainant let out and made over possession of the aforesaid vehicle to the Proforma opposite party-4 on the terms and conditions set forth in the hire purchase agreement. Under the said agreement the complainant remained to be the sole owner of the vehicle and the same was insured with the opposite parties 1,2 and 3 under a scheme of Comprehensive Insurance on payment of a premium of Rs.8,573/-. The opposite parries issued a certificate bearing the Policy No.30900/21/25183/91 dated 17th December, 1991 and the same was valid upto 16th December, 1992. Under the terms of the agreement, the complainant as the owner of the vehicle was entitled to the benefits of the insurance. The complainant has come to understand from the Proforma OP-4 that the said vehicle was stolen from the possession of the Proforma OP on or about 21.11.1991 and in spite of best efforts it could not be traced out so far. The Proforma OP-4 lodged a Diary on 26.12.1991 with the Barhia Police Station, Bihar, informing that the said vehicle was stolen on 21.12.1991 at 9-00 p. m. The police pursuant to the FIR made a vigorous search to ascertain the whereabouts of the vehicle but could not trace out the same. The claim for insurance money was also duly lodged to the opposite party No.1. The complainant submits that all necessary informations that were available with him were-turnished to the opposite party 1 on demand but the said opposite party neglected to settle the claim. On 10.7.1995, the comp lainant informed the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 that in spite of submission of all relevant documents the opposite parties held and neglected to settle the claim. There was protracted correspondence between the parties regarding the settlement of the claim but the Insurance Company having not agreed to come to a settlement, this complaint has been filed claiming a total amount of Rs.8,89,900/- including the insurance value of the vehicle, interest; compensation and cost.

(2.) The case is contested by the opposite parties by filing a written objection. The first objection raised is that the complainant is not a consumer as it carries on business in letting out vehicle on hire purchase. They also contend that the complainant has no locus standi to claim the insurance money as he is not the owner of the vehicle. They have also raised objections regarding necessary particulars about the theft of the vehicle, the registration of the same etc. are doubtful and have not been found to be acceptable to the Insurance Company on proper investigation. They have also raised other minor objections like the violation of the rule regarding the appointment of expert drivers and concealment of the material facts by the complainant. The Insurance Company has stated that the claim is frivolous in nature and is not a genuine one.

(3.) The points for determination are- (1) if the complainant is entitled to maintain the claim; (2) if the claim is barred by limitation; (3) if the claim of theft is a genuine one; and (4) if the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for. (1) Regarding point No.1 :