For the Appellant : Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent : N E M O ..2..Dated, the 27th day of August, 2010 ORDER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Challenge in these appeals is to the orders dated 14.01.10 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case nos. 42 and 56 of 2009. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has dismissed the complaints filed by the appellant herein primarily on the ground that the complaints of the nature and for the relief claimed therein were not maintainable before a consumer forum and the complainant could work out its remedy by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court/Tribunal. 2. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaints have been noted by the State Commission in the impugned orders and we do not wish to repeat them here once again. The basic fact is that the complainant had obtained insurance policies from the opposite party insurance company and after the peril, they raised their claims which were repudiated by the insurance company. The complaints were resisted, inter-alia, on the ground that the insurance policies were obtained by the complainant for ..3.. covering the risk of purely commercial activities and, therefore, the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ as defined in section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The other complaint related to illegal withdrawal of the policy and refund of the part premium on unjustified ground and it was also resisted on the ground that the dispute raised in the complaint could not be subject matter of a complaint before a consumer fora. 3. We have heard Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerje, learned counsel for the appellant but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent as none appeared for them despite due notice. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned orders primarily on the ground that they are based on improper appreciation of the facts and circumstances and are not in consonance with the legal position as settled by this Commission. In this connection, he has invited our attention to the decision of this Commission delivered in the case of M/s. Hansolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (First Appeal Nos. 159 to 161/04 decided on 3.12.04) where the similar question arose and was answered as under:- ..4.. “ At the outset, it is to be stated that an insured who takes the insurance policy cannot trade or carry on any commercial activity with regard to the insurance policy taken by him. Under Sec.3 of the Insurance Act, 1938, no person is permitted to carry on business of insurance unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the Insurance Recovery and Development Authority. Further, hiring of services of the Insurance Company by taking insurance policy by Complainants who are carrying on commercial activities cannot be held to be a commercial purpose. The policy is taken for reimbursement or for indemnity for the 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. May be that insurance coverage is taken for commercial activity carried out by the insured. In Halabury’s Laws of England, vol. 25, 4th Edition, the origin and common principles of insurance is discussed and in paragraph 3 it has been mentioned that it is based on principle of indemnity. Thereafter, relevant discussion is to the effect that most of contract of insurance belong to general category of contracts of indemnity. In the sense that insurers’ liability is limited to the actual loss which is, in fact, proved. The contract is one of indemnity and, therefore, insured can recover the actual amount of loss and no more. In this view of the matter, taking of the insurance policy is for protection of the interest of the assured in the articles or goods and not for making any profit or trading for carrying on commercial purpose. Applying the aforesaid test we have to find out two things: ..5.. (i) whether goods are purchased for resale or for any commercial purpose? Or (ii) whether the services are availed for any commercial purpose? 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 purchase 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. ..6.. 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. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeals, set aside the order of the State Commission and remit the appeals to the State Commission for being decided them on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. The view taken by this Commission in the above referred decision still holds good although it has been challenged before the Supreme Court by way of an SLP but has not been upset. Therefore, the decision being of three judges Bench, we are bound by it and going by the said decision we must hold that the complaints filed by the appellant before the State Commission were maintainable before a consumer fora like the State Commission despite the fact that the insurance policies were taken in respect of purely commercial activities. The orders passed by the State Commission are, therefore, legally unsustainable and are liable to be set aside and the complaints filed by the appellant are required to be remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the same on merits. 5. In the result, the appeals are allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the complaints are remanded to the State Commission for ..7.. deciding the same on merits after affording due opportunity to the parties in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned State Commission on 30.09.10 for receiving further directions in the matter. No order as to costs in these proceedings.