19-03-2015 - Mr. Bihash Sinha submits that the written notes of argument and further documents are not required to be filed on behalf of the Appellant.  Mr. Alok Lal files written notes of argument.

 2.         Heard the parties on the limitation petition and on merits.

 3.       On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of about six days in filing this appeal is condoned.

4.     Mr. Bihash Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Complainant/       Appellant submits that the Complaint has been wrongly dismissed on the ground that the Complainant is not a consumer, as it is involved in a commercial activity.

                   He relied on the order dated 3.12.2004 passed in F.A. No. 159/2004 M/s. Horsolia Motors Vs. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. with other cases, by the Hon’ble National Commission.

5.        On the other hand Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the O.Ps./ Respondent/ Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment.

                  He relied on judgment/ reported in (2011) 1 SCC 525 Birla Technologies Ltd. vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd.

6.        We find that the judgment of Birla Technologies Ltd. (Supra) was in relation to purchase of goods for manufacture as raw –material.

                   In the said judgment Horsolia Motors (Supra ) it was interalia held as follows:

“Therefore, the two fold classification is commercial purpose and non-commercial purpose.

            If the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose then such consumer would be excluded from the coverage of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Such illustration could be that a manufacturer who is producing one product ‘A’, for such production he may be required to purchase articles, which may be raw-material, then purchases of such articles would be for commercial purpose.  As against this, the same manufacturer if he purchases a refrigerator, a television or an air-conditioner for his use at his residence or even in his office, it cannot be held to be for commercial purpose and for this purpose he is entitled to approach the consumer forum under the Act.

            Similarly, a hospital which hires the services of a medical practitioner, it would be a commercial purpose. But, if a person avails of such services for his ailment it would be held to be not a commercial purpose.

            Further, from the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that even taking wide meaning of the words ‘for any commercial purpose’ it would mean that goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit.  Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose. But, in a case where goods purchased or services hired in an activity which is not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be commercial purpose.

            In this view of the matter, a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose.  Policy is only for indemnification and actual loss.  It is not intended to generate profit.”

7.       In the present case, the Complainant/ Appellant got a Standard Fire and Peril policy, from the Insurance Company for the purpose of its Rice Mill.

8.       In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Appellant is not a consumer so far as the said policy is concerned.

9.       Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted back to learned District Forum for deciding the case on merit after giving opportunity to the parties to file additional pleading/ evidence.

10.          The parties will appear before learned District Forum at 11 a.m. on 20.04.2015 when the learned District Forum with fix date(s) and will proceed in accordance with law. The parties are directed to co-operate in early disposal of the case.

            With these observations and directions, this appeal is disposed off.

             Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

Ranchi,

Dated:-19-03-2015