DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 210/2013

M/s Premier Shield Pvt. Ltd.

C-144 & C-146, Lajpat Nagar-I,

New Delhi-110024

(Through it’s A.R. Mr. Vinod Saini)                                ….Complainant

Versus

M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.

E-13, Hauz Khas,

New Delhi-110016.                                                     ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution                    : 11.04.2013  Date of Order                  : 03.03.2020

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

1. Brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that complainant is a private limited company and doing the business of cash management services in Delhi and NCR. The complainant company to protect its business took a ‘Money Insurance Policy’ valid from 17.05.2010 to 16.05.2011 from National Insurance Co. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as OP and paid total premium of Rs.3,26,764/- to OP for the same.
   1. It is averred that a bag containing Rs.6,00,000/- got stolen from the motorcycle of the executive of the company. The complainant lodged an FIR and got untraced report from Delhi Police. Further the complainant company lodged a claim to OP alongwith the requisite documents but the insurance company did not settle the claim. The OP neither settled the claim nor repudiated the claim.
   2. Aggrieved by the circumstances, the complainant has approached this Forum to direct OP to pay the claimed amount of Rs.6,00,000/- covered under insurance policy and direct OP to pay Rs.2,25,000 towards compensation and litigation expenses.
2. OP resisted the claim by filing its written statement and raised preliminary objection stating that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It is next submitted that the complainant has taken the money insurance policy from OP and the same was issued according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and it is clearly mentioned that in exclusion clause No. 6 that theft of money from unattended vehicle is not covered under the scope of policy. It is submitted that the OP on this ground has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Therefore, OP is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs.
3. Rejoinder is filed. Affidavit of Shri Kashmir Singh Pardeshi, Personal Manager of the complainant’s company is filed by the complainant wherein facts of the complainant are reiterated. Evidence of Shri G.S. Dhillon, Senior Divisional Manager has been filed on behalf OP.
4. Written arguments have been filed by the parties.
5. Submissions made by the parties are heard and material perused very carefully.
6. (a) In the opening paragraph of the complaint, the complainant submits that it is a ‘Private Limited Company’ and doing the business of ‘Cash Management Services’ in Delhi and NCR. The very fact that complainant is a Private Limited Company which is doing business, presupposes that it is business entity for earning profits and not for earning livelihood.

(b) As per the definition of consumer under 2(1)(d)(i) of the consumer protection Act:-

“consumer” means any person who,—

(i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) [hires or avails of] any services 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 services 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 services for any commercial purpose];”

7. It was held in the case of Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lance Computers Pvt. Ltd. 1(2014) CPJ 332 (NC) that “software was purchased by a Private Limited Company and not by any individual. It has nowhere been pleaded that Managing Director is running business in the name of the complainant for earning his livelihood.”
8. In view of the discussion above, we opine that complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is a company duly incorporated under Companies Act and is running its business for commercial purpose. Hence the present complaint does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and is therefore, dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.  

Announced on 03.03.2020