BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT TIRUPATHI.

FA.No.1051/2011 against C.C.No.21/2011 District Consumer Forum, Kadapa YSR District.

Between:

V.Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o.Gangi Reddy,

Aged about 45 years, Business,

Residing at D.No.56-68-1,Kothapeta, Rayachoty,

Kadapa District, presently residing at Flat No.402,

Tirumala Towers, Opp.P.F.Office,

Gandhinagar,

Kadapa District.…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.The Branch Manager,

2.The Branch Manager,

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant            

Counsel for the Respondents      

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER.

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER,

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

           The appellant is an unsuccessful complainant.

“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 – 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.  

Therefore, it opined that the question whether it comes under commercial purpose would have no application.   Even then the Supreme Court opined that the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim on the ground that the transaction falls under the commercial purpose.   Necessarily, the dispute is between the complainant and the Insurance Company, a service provider.  

The District Forum did not discuss the merits of the matter and dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that he was not a consumer.    

Contd….5

 question whether the complainant was entitled to any amount, if so to what amount. 

________________________

                                                                                  Vvr.