Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/787

ABDUL AZIZ - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FIN.CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.V.K. SAXENA

13 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 787 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 27.03.2019 passed in C.C.No.83/2015 by District Commission, Balaghat)

 

ABDUL AZIZ S/O LATE ABDUL HAFEEZ,

R/O WARD NO.9, NEAR DR. KHAN NURSING HOME,

TEHSIL & DISTRICT-BALAGHAT (M.P.)                                                         … APPELLANT.

 

                  Versus

 

1. M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD.

    VOKHARDI TOWERS, LEVEL-3, WEST WING, C-2,

    G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051

 

2. MANAGER, M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE

    COMPANY LIMITED, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-SEONI (M.P.)

 

3. MANAGER, M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE

    COMPANY LIMITED, STATION ROAD, BALAGHAT

 

4. SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    E-8, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

 

5. RASHID KHAN S/O SHRI HAJI ABDUL WAHAB

    R/O WARD NO.8, LOHAR GALI,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-BALAGHAT (M.P.)                                                …. RESPONDENTS.    

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                       

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri V. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 to 3.

           Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

           None for the respondent no.5 though served.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 13.05.2024)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:

                   This appeal assails the order dated 27.03.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Balaghat (for short

-2-

‘District Commission) in C.C.No. 83/2015, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant after availing finance from the opposite party no.1 to 3/respondent no.1 to 3-M/S Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘finance company’) had purchased a truck bearing registration number MP-19 H-0451 for a sum of Rs.3,90,656/-. The financed amount was to be repaid in 45 installments of Rs.13,941/- per month. As per statement given by the finance company the first installment for Rs.17,126/- and last installment of Rs.13,941/- was to be deposited necessarily. The subject vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.4/respondent no.4-Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’) for the period w.e.f. 03.04.2015 to 02.04.2016.

3.                On 23.05.2015, the subject vehicle met with an accident as  a truck bearing registration number CG-07 NA-7034 coming from Baraseoni dashed the subject vehicle due to which the subject vehicle got damaged. The complainant filed claim with the insurance company. The surveyor appointed in the matter allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.26,950/-

-3-

against the claim made for Rs.1,92,856/-. It is alleged by the complainant that the insurance company did not pay the claim and due to which his truck stood in workshop and he could not ply the same and failed to deposit the installment towards repayment of loan. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties seeking relief.

4.                The opposite party no.1 to 3-finance company in their reply before the District Commission submitted that since the complainant failed to deposit the installments, a new agreement was executed between the finance company and the complainant on 25.03.2015 in which the balance amount of Rs.4,58,313.56/- were adjusted and the remaining amount of Rs.58,313.56/- was waived of. As per repayment order, the complainant had to pay Rs.5,82,634/- in 33 installments. As per account statement till 08.03.2016 there is outstanding amount of Rs.5,02,847/- on the complainant.

5.                The opposite party-insurance company resisted the complaint stating that the insurance company settled the claim as per surveyor’s report and the amount was deposited in his loan account. The complainant did not implead the owner of another vehicle who involved in the accident. The complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission. The insurance company has decided the claim of the complainant within

-4-

prescribed time period. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                The opposite party no.4 in his reply before the District Commission submitted that on instructions of the insurance company collected documents and prepared inspection report and sent the same to the insurance company.

7.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant is engaged in commercial activities and therefore, he is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.   Hence this appeal.  

8.                Heard learned counsels for the parties.  Perused the record.

9.                The short question involved in the matter is whether the complainant’s/appellant’s case can be adjudicated in the District Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. Undoubtedly, the complainant/appellant had obtained insurance cover for the subject vehicle engaged in his transport business.  The District Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that he was engaged in commercial activity, therefore, he cannot be termed as a consumer. Learned counsel for complainant/appellant submits that the complainant/appellant had hired the services of the opposite

-5-

party/respondent-insurance company and there is no commercial relationship between him and opposite party/respondent.

10.              It is also pertinent to mention here that the District Commission without framing any issue regarding maintainability of complaint and whether the complainant is a consumer or not has dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant is involved in commercial activities and therefore he is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

11.              The Hon’ble National Commission in case of Harsolia Motors Vs National Insurance Company Limited I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC) has held

that “Hiring of services of insurance company by complainants who are carrying on commercial activities cannot be held to be a commercial purpose. The Policy is taken for reimbursement or indemnity for loss which may be suffered due to various perils. There is no question of trading or carrying on commerce in insurance policies by the insured. Contract of insurance generally belongs to general category of contract of indemnity. Services may be for any connected commercial activity, yet it would be within purview of the Act.”

The aforesaid judgment was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Harsolia Motors II (2023) CPJ 33 (SC).

 

-6-

12.              In this view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the case deserves to be decided on its merits instead of dismissing the complaint holding that the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant is very well consumer in terms of provisions of the Act as also in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission. Accordingly, the impugned order of the District Commission is set-aside.

13.              The case is remanded back to the District Commission for deciding afresh on merits after affording equal opportunity to both parties to represent their case.

14.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 25.06.2024.

15.              The District Commission shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 

16.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.

         

                      (A. K. Tiwari)                   (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

                   Acting President                          Member