The preliminary issue hearing on the two issues framed by the Forum was held on 23/11/2019 following an application by the conducting Counsel of Respondent No. 2 i.e. Branch Manager, New India Assurance. The two issues which were put up for preliminary hearing are 1) Whether the District Forum has the jurisdiction to take up this Complaint Case or not ? and 2) Whether the Complainant is a “Consumer” as defined u/s 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not ? The District Forum has fully heard the points and references mentioned by both the conducting Counsel in support and against the two issues framed. Their references were analyzed in detail by the Forum. Regarding the two issues, the conducting Counsel of the Respondent No. 2 which has filed for preliminary hearing on the two issues framed, pleaded the following points.

That the present Complaint Case, the transaction or contract of Insurance is between the Respondent No. 1 and 2 i.e. the owner and the insurer of Tata bus bearing Registration No. MN06B/0456 whereby the Insurance Company promises to indemnify the owner in case of loss to him as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The service is being avail to the owner of the Tata Bus and not to the Complainant and he is a third party.

There is no relation between the Complainant and Respondent No. 2 as defined under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. A third party cannot file a Complaint Case in the District Forum and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint Case.

The conducting Counsel of the Respondent No. 2 further pleaded that the present Complainant has not hired or availed of the services of the Insurance Company, he is not a consumer within the meaning of the section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As he failed to be a Consumer within the meaning of the Act, he has no right to file this case under the Act.

Objecting to the pleadings of the Respondent No. 2 Counsel, the Counsel of the Complainant submitted that the present owner has paid certain amount to the Insurance to cover his liability of damaging other vehicle as such the service is not free and it is not a contract of personal service but, to cover the payment of damaging the other vehicle. the Counsel further submitted that under clause 42 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the present Complaint is maintainable and further according to this Act, consumer does not strictly confined to buyer and seller but to any beneficiary (Clause 7).

The Complainant’s Counsel submission can be considered and justified under the above mentioned clause of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. However, the said Act of 2019 even though becomes an Act, yet different dates may be appointed for different states by notification to enforce it. The state of Manipur is yet to notify a date for this Act to apply and enforce till date.

Hence, this Forum is of the view that this Complaint Case stands dismissed. The Complainant may also seek another appropriate Forum or platform to claim damage from the owner of the bus. This case stands disposed of.