Haryana

StateCommission

A/1084/2015

SADHU FORGING LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

TANMOY GUPTA

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1084 of 2015

Date of Institution:        17.12.2015

Date of Decision :         24.02.2016

 

M/s Sadhu Forging Limited Plot No.140, Sector-24, Faridabad, through its General Manager (Personal and Administration).

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Northern Regional Office, Signature Tower, 9^th Floor, Tower-2, South City-I, N.H.-8, Gurgaon-122001, through its authorized signatory.

2.      M/s Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office at 21, Paptullos Road, Chennai-600002, through its authorized signatory.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated September 22^nd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’), vide which the complaint was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

2.      M/s Sadhu Forging Limited-complainant/appellant, have installed Forging Machines (hereinafter referred to as ‘the machines’) at its factory premises. The machines were insured with M/s Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties, vide ‘Machinery Breakdown Policy (Exhibit P-1), w.e.f. 25.08.2006 to 24.08.2007. The machines broke down on 25.06.2007. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed R.L. Agarwal Surveyors Private Limited-Surveyor. The surveyor assessed net loss at Rs.5,60,909/- vide report P-3. However, the Insurance Company refused to pay the benefits of insurance. Compelled by the circumstances, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The Opposite Parties/Insurance Company, contested complaint by filing reply raising plea that the complaint was not a consumer, other pleas was also raised.

4.      The District Forum vide impugned order dismissed the complaint by relying upon the judgment of this Commission in Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Smt. Sudesh Bedi, decided on 28.06.2012, observed that the officer authorized by the complainant/company to institute the complaint and pursue further, was not a consumer and dismissed the complaint on this ground alone.

5.      Notice of this appeal was sent to the respondents/opposite parties, the same have been received back duly served upon the respondent No.2, which is head office of the respondent No.1.  

6.      The complainant is a private limited company. Undisputedly, the company is a juridical person and has to act through some person. In para No.7 of the impugned order, the District Forum has given inconsistent observation. In the first part it has mentioned that the complainant has not produced any Power of Attorney for proper legal representation. Simultaneously, it has been mentioned that “Evidently the complaint has been filed by M/s Sadhu Forging Ltd. Plot No.140, Sector-24, Faridabad through Sh. H.R. Adhlakha, General Manager (Personnel & Admn.). It is also evident from Annex.-I certified true copy of minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors held on 3.9.2008 that Sh. H.R. Adhlakha, G.M. (Personnel & Admn.) was authorized to file the complaint in the competent court against opposite parties but the same is signed by one Director only.”

7.      However, in the later part of para 7, the District Forum gave inconsistent observation as under:-

“……Also, Sh. H.R. Adhlakha is neither covered under the definition of a “consumer” as defined under section 2(d) nor under the definition of a “complainant” as defined under section 2(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thus complaint filed by him is not in accordance with section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not maintainable.” 

8.      Even otherwise, litigation by or against a Company/Corporation etc has to be signed, verified and filed on their behalf by Secretary, Director or other Principal Officer. When the District Forum has referred to the resolution Annexure-I authorizing H.R. Adhlakha, to file the complaint and the complaint was filed by the Company through H.R. Adhlakha, the District Forum observing that H.R. Adhlakha, was not a consumer; was certainly against the spirit of the Act and misconstrued the judgment in Smt. Sudesh Bedi’s case (Supra).

9.      Hence, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the District Forum, Faridabad, with direction to decide it on merits.

 

Announced 24.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL