IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/110/2018
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
13.06.2018 09.07.2018 19.09.2023
Complainant: Bibekananda Telecom Centre
Prop. Chandra Sekhar Bhakat,
73, B.B. Sen Road. Khagra, P.O.- Khagra,
P.S.- Berhampore,
Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742103.
-Vs-
Opposite Party1. Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Berhampore Branch Office,
3/20/A, K.K. Banerjee Road Gorabazar,
P.S.- Berhampore, P.O.-Berhampore,
Dt. Murshidabad, 742101
2. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Malda Division Office,
Joy Plaza Shopping Complex (2nd Floor),
Rath Bazar, Malda, 732101.
PO + PS + Dt- Malda
Agent/Advocate for the Complainants : S. Sinha
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : S.S. Dhar
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. ajay kumar das, presiding member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Bibekananda Telecom Centre, Prop- Chandra Sekhar Bhakat (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (here in after referred to as the O.P.s) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is a wholesale dealer as well as runs retail business in Vodafone, Airtel, Aircel, Tata Indicom, Tata Domoco, Idea, Mts, Reliance. He has also Sub-delarship in BSNL and the said business is run by him as proprietor of Bivekananda Telecom Centre. The Complainant maintains a shopkeepers Insurance Policy with the O.P. since 2008 and the said policy No is 0314052615P111162297.
During the Policy period i.e,. from 13.12.12 to 12.12.13 an incident of Burglary was occurred in the premises of the Complainant with the loss of cash amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and other articles which were in his shop and the total loss as assessed by the surveyor of the O.P. No. 2 has come to Rs. 6,08,427.00/-. The Complainant on 23.08.2013 had lodged a complaint with the Berhampore P.S. narrating the incident held on 22.08.2013 u/s 447/325/307/379/427/34 I.P.C. and the said case was registered as Berhampore P.S. Case No. 1072/13 dt. 23.08.2013 against the miscreants.
After proper investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the miscreants viz/ Pradip Mitra, Dilip Mitra and Shilpamoy Mitra under the sections of I.P.C. mentioned above and the case was committed to court of Sessions. Thereafter the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge (5th Court), Murshidabad at Berhampore had acquitted the accused persons from the charges on 10.11.2016.
The Complainant took loan from the Canara Bank Berhampore for transacting his business and the Complainant intimated the Bank about the occurrence and subsequently the Canara Bank Berhampore made an intimation to the O.P. No. 1. Thereafter the surveyor of the O.P. No. 2 had made a spot survey coming from their Division Office at Malda and made an assessment of loss to the extent of Rs. 6,08,427/-.
On receipt of all necessary papers regarding Burglary case the office of O.P. No. 2 Malda intimated the office of O.P. No. 1 at Berhampore Branch for taking necessary action in respect of the amount so assessed by the surveyor to transmit the same in the account of the Complainant lying in the Canara Bank but the said amount is yet to be transmitted in the account of Complainant till now.
The Complainant made an enquiry to the office of the O.P. No. 1 at Berhampore in respect of the amount of loss so assessed but the office of the O.P. No. 1 failed to satisfy the Complainant rather they asked the Complainant to delay of submission of final report or charge-sheet regarding the delay there was several correspondence in between the complainant and the O.P. No. 1. But no fruitful result was yielded.
The Canara Bank Berhampore is pressuring the Complainant to repay the loan amount along with interest time and again but the Complainant is failing to repay the said amount due to deficiency of their services towards the Complainant and the service not rendered by them tolls heavily upon body and mind of the Complainant. This act on the part of O.P.s compelled the Complainant to file the instant case before the District Commission with the prayer as mentioned in the complaint.
Defence Case
O.P. 1 is contesting the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The specific defense case of O.P. 1 is that the Complainant had a shopkeepers insurance policy being no. 031405/48/12/34/0000842, valid from 13.12.2012 to 12.12.2013 as the policy relates to a business, so the Complainant cannot be a consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act.
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. Ld. Advocate for the O.P. 1 is present. But the Complainant is found absent on call. The record shows that the Complainant was absent on 17.12.2020, 04.03.2021, 03.06.2021, 28.09.2021, 23.02.2022, 23.05.2022, 22.01.2022, 12.12.2022, 20.12.2022, 03.01.2023, 19.04.2023, 04.07.2023 and today i.e., on 19.09.2023.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P. 1 submits that the Complainant has stated in his complaint, “The Complainant is a wholesale dealer as well as runs retail business in Vodafone, Airtel, Aircel, Tata Indicom, Tata Domoco, Idea, Mts, Reliance. He has also Sub-delarship in BSNL and the said business is run by him as proprietor of Bivekananda Telecom Centre.”
The facts and circumstances clearly show that the Complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer and as such the instant case is not maintainable. He prays for dismissal of instant complaint case.
Section 2 (7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 says, “ Consumer means any person who hires or avails any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.”
Keeping in mind the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate by the O.P. 1 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the above legal position we are of the view that the Complainant is not a consumer and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 13.06.2018 and admitted on 09.07.2018. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/110/2018 be and the same is dismissed on merit against the O.P.s but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
