6-5-2023

ORDER ON ADMISSION  

BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Heard on admission. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that, the vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party and during the policy in force it was stolen by the unknown person on 5-9-2019, immediately he gave a police complaint and also informed to the respondent with respect to the theft of the vehicle and subsequently the vehicle was not traced out and the complainant claimed for settlement of the theft of the vehicle by virtue of the policy, but so far the Insurance Company have not settled the claim. Having no option the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency of service, the District Consumer Commission without considering the allegations of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party had dismissed the complaint as not maintainable and assigned the reason that the complainant is not fall with the definition of the Consumer as the vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial activities and dismissed the complaint. In fact the relationship between this complainant and this Opposite Party/Insurance Company is a consumer and service provider, the complainant had claimed for compensation by virtue of the policy and this fall within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act, hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission.

2. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, we noticed that, the Opposite Party had taken defence that the present consumer complaint is not a consumer as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, hence prays for dismissal the complaint.          

3. Relying upon the said version, the District Consumer Commission dismissed the complaint which according to us is illegal not in accordance with law. Though the vehicle used for commercial activities, the complainant had claimed for compensation for theft of the vehicle by virtue of the policy. The transaction between the complainant and Insurance Company is a consumer transaction not commercial one. The service provided by respondent is within the meaning of service as per Section 2 (42) of Consumer Protection Act. The dispute is definitely falls within the provision of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the District Consumer Commission without considering the provision of the Consumer Protection Act had dismissed the complaint which requires reconsideration. Accordingly the matter is remanded back to the District Consumer Commission and District Consumer Commission is directed to restore the same on its original number and try the matter on merits by issuing notice to both parties and adjudicate the matter on merits and dispose expeditiously. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off and we proceed to pass the following:-  

O R D E R

The appeal is disposed off. No order as to costs.  

The impugned order dated 20-02-2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayapura in CC.No.82/2021 is set-aside and remanded back. 

The District Consumer Commission is directed to restore the matter in its original number by issuing notice to both parties after providing sufficient opportunity and adjudicate the matter in accordance with law.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

                                                          Judicial Member