District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/132/2022
(Date of Filing:-23.06.2022)
- Banik Silk Printing Industries
represented by its partners
- Smt. Anamika Banik
and
2. Smt. Jayanti Banik,
having place of business at 30K,
Tarapukur Lane, Serampore,
Hooghly, Pin:-712203…..Complainant
- Regional Claim Manager,
SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Grievance Redressal Officer of 31, Nataraj
Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla Road,
Andheri East, Mumbai-400069, P.S. Andheri.
- The Authorized Signatory,
SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Fifteenth floor, Plot No. G II,
PS Srijan Corporate Park, Block-EP and GP,
Sector-5 Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700091
- Sri Diptendu Roy,
Manager of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.
of the same address as mentioned against OP 2
- Sri Siddhartha Chakraborty (Intermediary code 0020652)
Agent of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Horizon Building
57, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700072……….Opposite Parties
MR. DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER
Dtd. 30.10.2023
Final Order/Judgment
DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA:- PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant consumer case filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 originates from the grievances of the complainant arising out of OP 1and 2 Insurance Company’s denial to entertain the claim for an amount of Rs.15,82,045/- against an insurance policy maintained by the complainant with the OP 2. Incidentally OP 1, 2 and 3 belong to the same organization i.e. SBI General Insurance Company.
Brief facts of the case:-
Reportedly, the petitioner, a partnership firm having been involved in a business of saree printing/designing on job work basis, purchased an insurance policy of SBI General Insurance Company under SBI General’s Standard Fire & Special Peril Policy and the sum covered was to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/-
So far as the nature of the job work is concerned, the Complainant firm on receipt of half finished/semi finished sarees of different Government undertakings and other renowned private parties, develops thoseby printing, washing and packaging etc. However the insurance policy was purchased on 21.02.2020 and for ‘securing the business properties’. The policy was further renewed and the same was valid for the period 21.02.2020 to 20.02.2021.
In the year 2020 substantial stock of sarees supplied by various Government undertakings for designing and further jobs was seriously damaged because of the severe cyclone ‘Amphan’.
On 21.05.2020 the aforementioned loss was intimated to the insurance Company and consequent upon the above the OP Insurance Company appointed an independent surveyor to assess the loss.
On receipt of the survey report the OP insurance Company allegedly drew the inference that ‘the insured is in job work business; they work on customers’ stock/sarees/garments and bill for job charges and they do not have their own stock. Therefore the affected goods are “Goods held in trust” i.e. damaged items belonged to outside party’. Thus it was concluded that that the loss/damage was outside the scope of the said policy coverage and the corresponding claim lodged by the Complainant by this time was observed as untenable. Resultantly the claim was repudiated by the OP Insurance Company.
Subsequently repeated persuasions from the Complainant’s end yielded no result.
These developments compelled the Complainant to refer the case to the concerned Insurance Ombudsman. However on examination of averments of both the sides and the evidences and necessary relevant documents, the Insurance Ombudsman dismissed the case.
The complainant finally approached to this Commission by filing the complaint petition seeking direction upon the OP insurance Company to settle the insurance claim of Rs.15,82,045/- , pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency of service, pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental pain and agony, pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment, pay the cost of the case which is not specified and other reliefs as per law and equity.
Evidence on affidavit and Brief Notes of Argument filed by the Complainant are almost replica of the Complaint petition.
So far as the instant case is concerned, notices were served on all the opposite parties. Among the opposite parties only OP 4, who was a mere agent/intermediary submitted a handwritten representation not strictly in the form of a written version.
However the case ran ex parte against OP 1,2 and 3.
An MA case was initiated as the said OPs submitted a petition for setting aside the ex parte order but the MA case was finally dismissed by this Commission.
Decision with reasons:-Materials on records are perused.
At the very outset it should be mentioned that the Complaint petition prima facie is submitted by a partnership firm and not by any individual or individuals.
The sub-section 7 of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 specifically excludes a person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose or avails of any service for any commercial purpose.
However, it is further explained in the Act that the expression “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment.
Now, in the instant case, the partnership firm is represented by two partners but it is nowhere substantiated in the representations submitted by the Complainant through the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument, by producing material evidences that the partnership business was exclusively for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self employment. It could not be established that the insurance policy of the OP insurance Company was purchased for self use and not for profit generation.
Now it needs to be determined whether the insurance policy was purchased for commercial purpose. As regards the content of the instant complaint petition and admissions made therein, this Commission finds that the insurance service had a direct nexus with the profit generation activity.
Now, in view of the discussion made hereinabove and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that the Complainant in the instant case cannot be regarded as a consumer.
In the result the instant complaint petition appears devoid of any substance and the same deserves dismissal.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case no.132/2022 be and the same stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
