Hon’ble Mr. Manojit Mandal, President
Order No.4, dated 07/12/2018
The Complainant is represented by his Ld. Advocate and files hazirah.
Today is fixed for passing order.
The record is taken up for passing order.
The Complainant has filed two rulings as per firisti. Let it be kept with the record.
The Ld. Advocate appearing for the Complainant submits that the case would be admitted, otherwise, the Complainant would suffer loss and injury. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the decisions in Life Insurance Corporation of India – vs – Dharmendra Choudhary and in M/s Krishna Food & Baking –vs- M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. passed by Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Apex Court respectively.
Perused the record. Considered.
It is the case of the Complainant is that on 18.04.16, the Complainant made Insurance Policy with the O.P Company by paying a premium amount and on 04.02.17, the factory of the Complainant caught fire. The Complainant requested the O.P to release his claim but the O.P did not pay the insurance amount. The Complainant was earning his livelihood by means of self-employment through his business.
Now, we will have to consider as to whether the Complainant is a consumer as defined u/s 2(d) of the C.P Act, 1986.
Section 2(d) of the C.P Act, 1986 runs as follows:
(d) “consumer” means any person who –
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or
partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred
payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person
who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid
or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when
such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include
a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial
purpose; or
(ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid
or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of
deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other
than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for a consideration
paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any
system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the
approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person
who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;)
(Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him/her and services availed by him/her exclusively for the purposes of earning his/her livelihood by means of self-employment;).”
On plain reading, it is clear that the consumer is a person who buys goods or hires or avails of services for consideration present, past or future. The Section, however, carves out an exception by providing that the person who has purchased goods or hired or availed of services for commercial purpose shall not be included in the definition of consumer. The explanation to Section 2(1)(d), however, gives restricted meaning to the term “commercial purpose”. In the context of Section 2(1)(d) by providing that if the goods are bought or services are hired or availed exclusively by the Complainant for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment, it shall not be treated as “commercial purpose”.
On perusal of the complaint, it appears to us that the Complainant has clearly and categorically stated in the cause title of the complaint that he is the proprietor of M/s Vinay Agro Product and he is doing the business of stocking raw materialspulses (Dal) and Pulse Processing i.e. the whole process from grading to splitting to polishing and to get the finished pulses and the finished products are ultimately supplied in different places. The Complainant has also stated in the complaint that he was running his factory and the factory of the Complainant was properly insured with the O.P Co. i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The Complainant has further stated in the complaint that his factory caught fire on 04.02.17 and labours noticed the fire.
On plain reading of the above averments of the complaint, it appears to us that the Complainant is running his factory under the name and style M/s Vinay Agro Product and he is the proprietor of the said firm. It is also clear that before availing the services of the O.Ps, the Complainant was running the said business with the support of labours. This clearly indicates that the Complainant was not only earning his livelihood before making the Insurance Policy but he was also providing employment to other persons.
In the present case, having regard to the nature and character of the factory of the Complainant and the materials on record, it is clear to us that it is not the service which the Complainant purchased for use by himself exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The observations referred by the Complainant being named Life Insurance Corporation of India – vs – Dharmendra Choudhary and M/s Krishna Food & Baking –vs- M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. are not applicable in the facts of the instant case as all the aforesaid observations are distinguishable in the context of their facts.
In view of the above discussions, the Complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. As such, he has no locus-standi to maintain consumer complaint. Therefore, this complaint will not be admitted and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint is rejected with the observation that this order will not prevent the Complainant from availing of his legal remedy before the appropriate Forum on the same cause of action.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy of this Judgement/Final Order also available at www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
