O R D E R

17.04.2018

S.K. Sinha, President

                    The complainant claims Rs. 27,00,000- (Twenty seven lacs only), On account of the alleged loss of goods of the business in the name and style M/s Apollo Food Products due to of the flood water entered into the business promises of the complaint on 13.08.2017 damaging the entire food products and the raw materials. The complainant as such claimed Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty lacs only) as compensation Rs. 20,00,000/- the loan amount sanctioned by the bank in which Rs. 14,25,000/- was limit against the case credit and Rs. 4,75,000/- for purchase of machinery Rs. 2,00,000/- which the complainant has deposited in the loan account and Rs. 5,00,000/- toward mental and physical agony. It is alleged that due to in action of the bank the goods of the business was not insured at the material time. As such complainant not availed the insurance claim. Bank denied the claim stating that nothing was damaged not the flood water enbred into the premises as reported by concerned bank official after sport enquiry in the village. It was also stated that the complainant was required to keep the goods of the business all the time insured being the security of the loan on which bank had extended the financial assistance. It was also stated that as per the terms of the loan agreement the borrower is required insured the goods and keep the insurance alive however in case borrower fails in producing the insurance policy bank shall obtain the policy on its own upon instruction of the borrower but no liability can be fastened on the bank only in case insurance cover is not obtained. This apart complaint was objected on the grounds that the transaction between the Bank and the complainant is commercial. The complainant is carrying the business in large scale for earning of profit and not for livelihood by means of self employment. As such complainant is not a consumer under section 2 (I) (d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

2.                   Complainant and opposite party insurance company both filed reply and rejoinder.

3.                        We have considered the case of the parties. As per the complaint, written statement, objection, reply and rejoinder, admittedly, complainant is engaged in manufacturing of the food products registered under SSI, as per the allegation in the complaint the transaction between the complainant and opposite party is commercial for profit and not for the livelihood and that too by means of self employment. This apart a claims are vague and imaging. We do not find any fundamental facts in the complaint for the claims.

4.                   For the reasons and discussions above we do not any find any valid ground for admitting the complaint. It is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself.

      Upendra Jha                                                                S.K.Sinha

    Member(M)                                                                  President                             

 Mukund