F.A.No.299/2007  against un-numbered CC.    /2006 in S.R.No.1264 , dt.23.8.2006, Dist Forum, Anantapur. 

Between:

M/s. Aiswaryambika Oil Industries,

Door No.15-590, Gooty Road,

Yadiki Village & Mandal Anantapur District,

Rep. by its Partner B.Sathyanarayana

S/o.B.C.Giriyappa, R/o.Yadiki Village & Mandal.       … Appellant/

                                                                            Complainant

                            And

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Railway Feeder Road, Anantapur.                           …  Respondent/

                                                                             Opp.party

Counsel for the appellant                :       M/s.K.Maheswara Rao 

Counsel for the respondent              :       Mr.Katta Laxmi Prasad

CORAM : SRI SYED ABDULLAH , HON’BLE MEMER

                                                   AND

                SRI R. LAXMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                            WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE

                                    TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral order : (Per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member )

                                 ***

        The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant in un numbered C.D.   / 2006 in S.R.No.1264   dt.23.8.2006   on dismissal of the complaint holding that the complaint is not a  consumer dispute this appeal is filed assailing the order praying to set aside the same. 

        The facts of the case in un-numbered complaint are that the complainant has been  running Oil  Industry in Yadiki Village , Anantapur District  under  the name and style of M/s. Aiswaryambika Oil Industries   and doing business  in transporting  oil to different states  for sale.   In connection of his business  the complainant obtained Marine Cargo Inland Transit Policy  bearing no. 1/2005  valid from 10.5.2004 to 9.5.2005  from the opposite party for a  sum of Rs.50 lakhs and in case of any loss sustained   the insurer has to indemnify  the loss as per  its conditions.  On 16.12.2004   while ground nut oil weighing 10,000 kgs worth Rs.5 lakhs was being transported to M/s.Venkatesh Oil Industries,  Amaravathi, Maharashtra  by engaging the groundnut oil tanker bearing no.AHV-234  through M/s. Saikiran Road Lines , Anantapur  under bill no. 93 and waybill no. 2385191 dt.14.12.2004 , when the lorry reached Sonu Bridge on NH.7 road  within Balakonda police station limits  another  tanker  came on the opposite direction  and to avoid collusion the driver of the tanker swerved the vehicle towards left and in that process he lost control over the vehicle  and hit road  side margin stone  as a result of  it ground nut oil started leaking from the opening and  in the meanwhile the nearby villagers manhandled the driver and have taken away the entire groundnut oil by tampering the seals   and on coming to know the incident the complainant informed the same to the opposite party insurance company and also to the owner of the vehicle . The surveyor had visited the spot and assessed  the loss  at Rs.4,97,571/-.  The complainant had produced all the required documents to the opposite party, but the opposite party refused to settle the claim  and insisted to accept an amount of  Rs.3,35,000/- in full and final settlement.  In order to avoid  delay in settlement of the claim  the complainant finally had agreed and signed  for settlement of Rs.3,35,000/- for which cheque was issued on 7.6.2006.   The complainant was compelled to accept the settlement of account due to financial pressures. Later he issued legal notice requiring the opposite party to  pay balance amount of Rs.1,62,571/- with interest thereon from the date of accident till the date of settlement . Opposite party sent reply  refusing  payment  before registering the complaint .

        The District Forum raised the objections as to the maintainability of the complaint.  Their objection is that since the complainant is doing oil business and transporting to different states for the purpose of sale on large scale which is for commercial purpose  and it is to be explained how he falls within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. 

         On behalf of the complainant two decisions were cited 1. II (2006) CPJ 419 , 2. 1(2006 CPJ 28 and 1(2006 CPJ ,47  in support of the stand that by way of insurance  taken by commercial organization  is not for commercial purpose.   The  District Forum had discussed  the aspects  namely whether the Complainant is a Consumer within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act and whether the complaint raised by the complainant is a quantum dispute and  not the consumer dispute. 

        After going through the definition of the ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the  C.P.Act  and the explanation of ‘Commercial Purpose’  the District Forum came to the conclusion that since the complainant is running an oil industry and doing oil business by transporting  to different states  he would not come under the definition  of ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d)  of Consumer Protection and therefore held that the complaint is not maintainable.  For the second point finding is given  that the complainant did not raise any protest  in writing  at the time of signing  the receipt  for   full and final settlement  as such it is deemed that he received the amount voluntarily  and that the claim is only a quantum dispute and not a consumer dispute   and that he should agitate  in a  regular civil suit    as  has been laid down in a decision of M/s. ARORA KNITTING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.  vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.  Reported in 2003 (1)CPR 72 (NC) .

        The undisputed facts are that the complainant is having large scale business in transport of oil for  sale and earning profits on commercial purpose . A plain reading of definition of Consumer itself make it clear that any person who   obtained such  goods for sale  or for any commercial purpose is not a consumer at all.  It is not a case of the complainant that he is earning his livelihood for self employment.  So the finding of the District Forum that the  complainant is not a consumer does not suffer from any legal infirmity  The next point that  falls for consideration is whether it is a consumer dispute or a quantum dispute is also very clear from the very admissions made by the complainant .  The claim was already settled for full and final settlement and the amount was received . The dispute is only for  part payment  which is to be treated  only as a quantum dispute but not as a consumer dispute. In such case  it does not amount to deficiency in service at all as laid down by the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission cited supra.  We  are of the considered opinion that the District Forum has rightly rejected the complaint stating that it is not a consumer dispute. 

        In the result appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum  dt. 25.9.2006  passed in un-numbered CC.  /2006 in S.R.No.1264 dt. 23.8.2006  as justified.  There is no order as to costs.

                                        MALE MEMBER (SA)     

MALE MEMBER(RLNR)

                                Dt.3.6.2009