West Bengal

StateCommission

FA/514/2009

Sri Anil Kumar Gupta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, M/S Bansal Oil Mill Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Saraj Kumar Das.

13 Jan 2010

ORDER


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGALBHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31 Belvedere Road. Kolkata -700027
APPEAL NO. 514 of 2009
1. Sri Anil Kumar Gupta.Proprietor of M/S Gagan Vanaspati Distributors, 11/C, Kalakar Street, Kolkata-700007. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. The Director, M/S Bansal Oil Mill Ltd.G-834(A), Road. no. 14, Viswakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur-302913, Rajasthan.2. Sri S. K. Agarwal, G-13 & H-14-16, Badhama Industrial Area, Road No. 14, V.K.I. Area, Jaipur-302013, Rajasthan.3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Division office No. 1, 2nd floor, Amanda Bhawan, S.C. Road. Jaipur-302001, Rajasthan.4. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.Regional Office-4, Lyons Range Kolkata-700001. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Mr. Saraj Kumar Das., Advocate for
For the Respondent :

Dated : 13 Jan 2010
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.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

1/13.01.2010.

 

Heard Mr. S. K. Das, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant – Appellant.  The argument of Mr. Das is that the Complainant is the beneficiary of the Insurance Policy as it was the consignee of the subject goods.  But it appears from the records that in respect of said goods Insurance Policy was taken by M/s. Bansal Oil Mill Ltd. and O.P. No. 1 representing it made insurance claim in respect of the subject goods and received the Policy benefit.  The Complainant in such circumstances, though is a beneficiary as a consignee, cannot maintain a claim from the Insurance Company.  The Complainant may have a claim against the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 1 being not a service provider, the complaint before the Forum is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer.  But we have not decided any of the questions as regards claim of the Complainant against the O.P. No. 1. if it is otherwise maintainable before any appropriate Court.  The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.


MR. A K RAY, MemberHON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENTMRS. SILPI MAJUMDER, Member