NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1601/2006

SUMITRA DEVI SINGHANIA & ORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

SANJAY GHOSH

21 Oct 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 07 Jul 2006

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1601/2006
(Against the Order dated 30/11/2005 in Appeal No. 80/A/2003 of the State Commission West Bengal)
1. SUMITRA DEVI SINGHANIA & ORSMAIN ROAD PURULIA P.O.& P.S.S & DISTT-PURULIA WB WB ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER JALAN BHAWAN OPP. COLLECTORATRO SIKAR RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN 322001 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :SANJAY GHOSH
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 21 Oct 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

         Complainant, Petitioner herein, filed a complaint before the District Forum. It is the case of the petitioner that a consignment of 12 tonnes (11731 kgs) of mustard oil sent by M/s. Pramod Industries, respondent no. 2 to it at Purullia through a tanker supplied by Sivam Oil Tankers. The said tanker met with an accident and major portion of the oil drained out and stolen away. The said consignment was insured with the respondent no. 1 Insurance Company. Complainant filed the insurance claim. Surveyor was appointed, who submitted the assessment report. Complainant also submitted all relevant papers for the claim but the same was not settled. This led to the filing of the complaint. 
 
        The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,87,955/- for the loss sustained by the petitioner and Rs.15,000/- as consolidated compensation within 60 days from the passing of the order failing which interest @9% p.a. on the awarded amount shall be payable till realisation.
 
         Insurance Company, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission has set aside the order passed by the District Forum by observing that the petitioner was not a consumer as it had not hired the services of the Insurance Company and the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not maintainable. 
 
         Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the revision petition.
 
         Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B.N. Sainani [(1997) 6 SCC 383]” has held that the consignee is not a consumer and the complaint filed on its behalf is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the fact that the judgement of the State Commission is in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.
 

        However, the petitioner, shall be free to approach any other fora except Consumer Fora, alongwith an application under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute {(1995) 3 SCC 583}.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER