Consumer protection institute cannot file class action against DPVAT

nila44

DPVAT insurance, which is mandatory, has no link with the owner of the vehicle capable of configuring a consumer relationship. With this understanding, judge Ricardo Cunha Porto, of the 8th Federal Court of the Judiciary Section of Ceará, stated that the Institute of Scientific and Technological Research, Education and Consumer Defense (Ipedc) cannot propose public civil action to defend the interests of insurance beneficiaries.


The entity requested the nullity of the act that determined the anticipation of the DPVAT due date to January 31, 2018, and that the vehicle licensing date be maintained. According to the petition, advance payment without advertising goes against common sense, since people were used to making payments together with car licensing, and goes against the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

Ipdec had the request for an injunction B2B Lead granted “solely for the purpose of ensuring that DPVAT beneficiaries receive payment of compensation even if the insurance payment has not been made or is made late”. In light of the decision, Seguradora Líder-DPVAT, defended by lawyers  Carlos Harten , Leonardo Cocentino and Rostand Santos , from Queiroz Cavalcanti Advocacia, filed an embargo for a declaration, highlighting, among other arguments, the active illegitimacy of the promoter.

The thesis was accepted by judge Ricardo Porto. According to the judge, DPVAT, unlike other optional insurance, does not involve any consumer relationship, so “the author Institute lacks legitimacy to protect the interests involving insurance”, he stated.

“It can be seen through the IPEDC Bylaws that its social objective – and this was the cause of action expressed in the initial – the filing of public and popular civil action in defense of consumer rights – especially those related to education – in addition to contemplate the objective of promoting the popular economy by promoting credit and promoting agreements and service provision contracts with an environmental link”, highlighted the judge.



As the part was considered illegitimate, the other discussions in the request did not prosper and the injunction granted was revoked. The judge also cited the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice, in a trial reported by Minister Marco Buzzi (REsp 1091756).

“In the absence, even tangentially, of a consumer relationship, it does not seem correct to attribute to an association, with specific consumer protection purposes, legitimacy to protect diverse interests, as is the case with those referring to DPVAT insurance, under penalty of distorting the requirement of adequate representation, typical of collective actions", stated the minister at the time.