Circuit Bench Siliguri

StateCommission

RP/14/2018

KALI PRASAD SAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER,ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SANTANU CHAKRABORTY & TEJASWI SUBBA

13 Mar 2019

ORDER

SILIGURI CIRCUIT BENCH
of
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
2nd MILE, SEVOKE ROAD, SILIGURI
JALPAIGURI - 734001
 
Revision Petition No. RP/14/2018
( Date of Filing : 27 Dec 2018 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 07/12/2018 in Case No. CC/98/2018 of District Cooch Behar)
 
1. KALI PRASAD SAH
S.N. ROAD, DURGABARI, P.S-KOTWALI, P.O-COOCH BEHAR, PIN-736101
COOCH BEHAR
WEST BENGAL
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANOTHER
COOCH BEHAR BRANCH, P.C. SHARMA BUILDING, RUP NARAYAN ROAD, P.S-KOTWALI, P.O-COOCH BEHAR, PIN-736101
COOCH BEHAR
WEST BENGAL
2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGISTERED & HEAD OFFICE- A-25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002
NEW DELHI
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Subhendu Bhattacharya PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Amal Kumar Mandal MEMBER
 
For the Petitioner:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 13 Mar 2019
Final Order / Judgement

Order No. 5

The record is taken up for passing necessary order. This revisional application relates to the order passed by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar in CC no. 98 of 2018 dated 07/12/2018. The revisional case in nutshell is that the revisionist/complainant is the proprietor of M/s Binay Agro Product and he is doing the business of stocking raw materials pulse (dal) and pulses processing that is the whole process from grading to splitting to polishing and to get the finished pulses are supplied in different places. His factory was properly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. which was gutted in the fire on 04/02/2017 and he had suffered a loss financially and for not getting the proper compensation form the insurance company he has filed the instant consumer case. Ld. Forum at the time of admission of the case has come to a conclusion that the instant business and running factory with labourers are meant for commercial purposes and the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer under the CP Act, 1986. And for that reasons the consumer complaint was dismissed at the admission stage. Being aggrieved with this order this revision follows on the ground that the complainant/revisionist was running the said business for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and as he could not do all the necessary works for such business, he has deputed some labours and with the help of the labourers he runs his business and Ld. Forum has failed to understand the actual position and for that reason the instant impugned order should be set aside. The OP no. 1 and 2 of this case after receiving the notice of revision has contested the revisional application through the Ld. Advocate Santanu Chakrabory. The revisional application was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of both sides.

Decisions with reasons

            Admitted position is that the revisionist is the proprietor M/s. Binay Agro Product and runs factory with the aid of some labourers for processing pulses like dals and according to him he runs this business for earning his livelihood as an unemployed youth. Ld. Forum has considered the alleged business of the complainant/revisionist was meant for commercial purposes and for that reason consumer complaint was dismissed ab initio. Ld. Advocate of the revisionist at the time of hearing revisional application mentions before the Commission that the complainant in his written consumer complaint has specifically and categorically mentioned that his business styled as Binay Agro Product is a  proprietorship establishment under him by which he was earning his bread and butter and livelihood by means of self-employment. And it is not a wholly commercial purpose to run this business. He further mentioned that whether the said business is meant for commercial purpose or not is a question of fact which to be determined after the recording of evidences and at the very outset it is not desirable to hold without taking evidence that the said business was meant for out and out commercial purpose. Ld. Advocate of the respondent at the time of hearing also held in the same view as because whether a business is run strictly for a commercial purpose or for earning his livelihood is not so easy to determine without recording the evidences and for that reason the consumer complaint should not be dismissed in immature stage. Thus, the order of Ld. Forum appears to be irregular and not vested with the law.

Hence it is ordered: -

That the instant revisional application be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without any cost. The order of Ld. Forum dated 07/12/2018 is hereby set aside and the consumer complaint is hereby admitted on its own merit. The Opposite parties have already recorded their appearances in the revisional application and they were well aware about the existence of this consumer complaint. So, the opposite parties of this consumer complaint are at liberty to appear before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar to contest the instant consumer complaint by filing a written version within 30 days from this day. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar for taking necessary action.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Subhendu Bhattacharya]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Amal Kumar Mandal]
MEMBER

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.