Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the impugned order, by which the complaint case initiated by the Appellant has been dismissed by the Ld. District Forum, this Appeal is preferred.

The complaint case was filed by the Appellant over refusal of its proposal for repair of the other side of the damaged wall by the Respondent Insurance Company. Acting on the maintainability petition moved by the Respondent, the instant complaint case was dismissed by the Ld. District Forum holding inter alia that the Appellant is/was not a consumer.

On due consideration of the submission advanced by the parties and on perusal of the documents on record, we, however, do not find any substance in such finding of the Forum below.

By dint of the subject insurance policy, the Appellant hired the services of the Respondent for indemnifying its property from unforeseen perils.  The purpose of hiring such services had got nothing to do with generation of profit by successfully running the business establishment of the Appellant.  In view of this, the status of the business entity (Appellant) or the driving force of running such activities was totally irrelevant for consideration of the maintainability of the complaint case.  In this regard, we are fortified by the celebrity decision of Hon’ble National Commission in M/S. Harsolia Motors vs. M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble Commission has been pleased to observe thus:

“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”.

It thus seem that the Ld. District Forum made blatant mistake in determining its jurisdiction appropriately.  Accordingly, we are constrained to set aside the same. 

The Appeal, accordingly, stands allowed in part.  Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 01-10-2019 for fresh adjudication of the matter on merit.