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 | |