Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Challenging the impugned order, by which the instant complaint case filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the Ld. District Forum, this statutory Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is moved.

The complaint case originated over repudiation of Appellant’s insurance claim by the Respondents. 

After hearing both sides and on perusal of documents being placed by them, the Ld. District Forum basically framed three issues in its bid to come to a logical decision in the matter.

On due consideration of available materials on record, the Ld. District Forum found that the objection being raised on behalf of the Respondents pertaining to validity of the driving licence of the driver or the nature of accident were not tenable in law.  It is found that, the Ld. District Forum quite correctly derived at a judicious decision in these matters. 

Despite this, the instant complaint was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant was not a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act.  It is a fact that the insured vehicle was used for commercial purpose.  However, on account of sheer omission on the part of the Appellant to mention the fact that the vehicle was used by him for earning livelihood by means of self-employment, it was highly improper/illogical to dismiss the instant case. In doing so, the Ld. District Forum completely ignored the fact that there was nothing on record to suggest that the Appellant owned any other commercial vehicle or he had any other means to earn livelihood. 

Above all, the most vital aspect that appears to have escaped the scrutiny of Ld. District Forum was that on payment of due premium, the Appellant hired the services of the Respondent to indemnify himself from the specified perils in respect of the subject vehicle.  The insurance coverage was not taken for making any commercial gain.  In this regard, the decision taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in M/S. Harsolia Motors vs. M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC) bears recalling wherein the Hon’ble Commission has been pleased to observe thus:

“In this view of the matter, a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is only for indemnification and actual loss. It is not intended to generate profit”.

In view of this, we are unable to endorse the view of the Forum below that the Appellant was not a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act.

In our considered opinion, therefore, the Appellant deserved due settlement of his claim. 

We, therefore, allow this Appeal and set aside the impugned order.  Respondent Nos. 1&2 are directed to remit Rs. 9,36,054/- to the Respondent No. 3 along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the sum of Rs. 9,36,054/- being the settlement sum of the subject claim from the date of filing of the complaint case till full and final payment is made.  Respondent Nos. 1&2 shall also pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost to the Appellant.  In case of non-compliance of this order within 40 days hence, Appellant shall be at liberty to prosecute the Respondent Nos. 1&2 in accordance with law.