SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-12 of C.P.A.-1986, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging a “deficiency-in-service” against the Opp. Parties praying for compensation along with litigation cost.
2. The factual matrix of this case is that the complainant, with a view to establish a flex printing unit of his own, applied for a loan from OP No.3 and after observing all formalities, OP No.3 sanctioned loan in his favour for purchase of large format inkjet printer and other necessary machine. OP No.3 has insured the said flex printing unit through OP No.1 & 2 vide policy No.163005111610000054 effected from 24.3.2017 to 23.3.2018 and issued policy certificate on receipt of premium. It is stated that on 31.5.2017 the printing press of the complainant set fire due to short circuit for which all the electronics system along with printers were damaged. On being informed, fire brigade arrived and took necessary action. The complainant also informed the OP No.1 & 2 for necessary verification. One investigator engaged by OP No.2 visited the spot and submitted report in details before OP No.1 & 2. The complainant submitted claim form before OP No.1 with all relevant documents, but the OP No.1 & 2 rejected his claim as no claim. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice on the Ops on 1.8.2018, but in vain. Therefore, finding no other alternative, the complainant was constrained to file the case. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant has relied on the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder-
- Photocopy of legal notice.
- Photocopy of letter of repudiation issued by OP No.2 dated 19.6.18.
- Photocopy of statement of account issued by OP No.3.
- Photocopy of letter of OP No.2 dated 28.6.10 issued to complainant.
- Photocopy of letter of repudiation issued by OP No.2 dated 30.7.18.
- Photocopy of policy bond with terms & conditions.
3. In the present case, Ops were made their appearance. OP No.1 & 2 filed their joint written version whereas OP No.3 filed his separate written version.
4. In their written version, OP No.1 & 2 have not only challenged the maintainability of the case, but also denied the allegations made in the complaint petition. These Ops have stated, inter alia, that during survey of the flex print unit of the complainant by the deputed surveyor, it was ascertained that there was electric short circuit in the service wire connected to the premises and there was no sign of fire and sign of spark inside the machine panel and the Service Engineer confirmed that due to short circuit the main PCB and Head-4 PC got damaged. Further, the large Format Inkjet Printer and connected electronic system was not affected and damaged due to fire, rather, due to short circuit which is excluded from the coverage of risk as per clause No.6. That apart, the complainant has not complied the clarification sought for by OP No.2. From receiving the intimation of loss till the repudiation of claim, these Ops acted according to the terms and conditions and exclusion of the issued Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. In the aforesaid premises, these Ops have not committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
5. OP No.3 has stated in his written version that considering the application submitted by the complainant seeking the loan for establishing a flex printing unit, this OP has sanctioned the loan and disbursed the sanctioned amount in his favour subject to its terms and conditions to which the complainant is liable to pay the same with interest. The OP No.2 has issued the insurance policy in favour of the complainant to secure the unit. Hence, the liability or loss, if any, claimed by the complainant, needs to be settled by the OP No.2 and this OP No.3 has no role to play in the matter. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service committed by this OP, as alleged by the complainant and furthermore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against this OP. Further, the complainant has filed this case with an oblique motive to deprive the OP-Bank from getting his legitimate dues. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
6. In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether this consumer case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(vi) To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
7. Before delve into the merits of the case, it is required to be decided how far the complainant is able to prove his case with regard to the cause of action and maintainability of the case.
8. On perusal of the documents filed on behalf of the complainant, it is found that the complainant has applied for a loan from OP No.3-Bank for purchase of large Format Inkjet Printer and other necessary machines for his flex printing unit. That apart, the complainant has mentioned in his complaint that he is a reputed business man and Networking and advertisement. Nowhere in his complaint, the complainant has stated a single line that he has availed loan from OP No.3-Bank for maintaining his livelihood, rather, it is clearly made out that he is a business man and for the purpose of business, he has availed the loan. The complainant has not satisfied this Commission as to the fact that the goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment. Besides the above, the complainant has failed to satisfy this Commission with regard to the fact that the consumer’s right is to be protected against the marketing of goods, products or services which are hazardous to life and property and further the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services, as the case may be, so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices. From the above, it is clearly made out that the complainant is not a consumer as required under Sub-section (7) of Section 2 of C.P. Act.
9. From the above analysis made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Commission is of the considered view that the complainant is not a consumer, hence, he has no cause of action to file the case and the case is not maintainable. Consequently, the complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for, in the complaint petition.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 29th day of April, 2024 under signature & seal of the commission.
