Heard the Counsels for the Appellant and Respondents. Both of them have challenged the order dated 13.10.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint Case No 7/2021 by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, East Khasi Hills,Meghalaya, Shillong (hereinafter mentioned District Redressal Forum), generated two appeals bearing Appeal No 11/2022 & Appeal No.13 of 2022. Appeal No. 11 of 2022 has been filed by Shri T.Ali Ao who has advanced his submission that though he has been awarded the compensation for the loss of 18000 litres of Air Transport Fuel, but the District Commission has wrongly refused to grant the benefit of compensation for the damage of tanker vehicle. Consumer appeal No. 13/2022 has been filed by Oriental Insurance Company challenging the aforesaid same order passed by the District Redressal Forum on the ground that the claim of the Complainant T.Ali Ao was not maintainable before the Consumer Commission and wrongly the District Commission has allowed the complaint case thereby wrongly directed in total payment of Rs 9,69,940/-.

          The short facts in the present case are that Shri T.Ali Ao has an oil tanker vide Registration No.AS-01-DS-6055. In order to cover the vehicle and load of the Tanker under insurance, Sri T.Ali Ao purchased the insurance policy of vehicle vide Policy No. 1304823115P114693027 and the load was also under Insurance cover under the Carrier Liability Policy (insurance coverage for goods) vide Policy No 13048246157000000010.

          The said Tanker was hired by Bharat Petroleum Corporation for carrying the load of Air Transport Fuel of 18000 liters for Rs 8,69,940/- from Numaligarh Refinery Limited, Numaligarh Assam to Agartala Airport for unloading. After loading the Air Transport Fuel, the tanker vide Registration No AS-01DC- 6055 on the way met with an accident on  13.05.2016 near Riat Puriang on the National Highway (NH) 44 falling under Mawryngkneng Police Station. T.Ali Ao has lodged an FIR in Mawryngkneng Police Station being Case No G.R 79(A) of 2017. T.Ali Ao has filed a claim before the Insurance Company and mentioned that the vehicle was damaged in the accident and the transport fuel was found to be missing. On receipt of claim application, the Insurance Company asked to supply the driving licence of the driver and final police report, but Sri T. Ali Ao failed to submit the same which has led to closure of the claim and resulted into non-payment of any amount. During investigation, the police found that the driver and helper, in fact, stealthily sold the Air Transport Fuel to unknown third party and in order to show accident tried to throw the vehicle in a deep valley, but luckily the same got stuck on the guard wall. The police found that there was no sign of leakage as well as no spilling of the oil on the road, and finally filed the charge sheet in which it has been mentioned that the driver and the helper in order to show the pretended accident tried to throw the vehicle in deep valley and illegally sold the Air Transport Fuel. Sri T. Ali Ao filed claim application before the District Redressal  Forum vide Complaint Case No. 7/2021. After adjudication, the District Redressal Forum allowed Rs. 8,69,940/- for the loss of the fuel, Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 30,000/- for cost of litigation, in total Rs. 9, 69,940/-.

          During the proceeding of adjudication of the complaint case before the District Redressal Forum, the Insurance Company has taken plea that the vehicle/Tanker which was carrying the goods was Air Transport Fuel which was to be unloaded at Agartala Airport in the State of Tripura for Jet A-1 flight which was commercial in nature and, as such, it does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. In support of submission the Insurance Company placed  reliance on the judgment in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works versus Industrial, reported in  (1995) SCC 358. It has further been argued that the District Redressal Forum without following the proper procedure , in ipse dixit manner, decided the case in favour of Shri T.Ali Ao without taking into consideration that his driver and helper were engaged in selling the oil illegally as well as tried to throw the vehicle in such a manner to show that it was an accident. So the District Commission ought to have followed the proper procedure and it ought to have asked the parties to lead the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, to substantiate the claim. The District Redressal Forum without considering all the materials on record has granted the relief to T.Ali Ao, whereas the counsel for T.Ali Ao submitted that though the District Commission has granted relief of the loss of fuel but has not taken into consideration for relief with respect to damage of vehicle. Both sides are aggrieved by the Order of the District Commission.

     On perusal of the impugned order, we found, especially the plea was taken by the Insurance Company that the present case does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act but the Commission without proper consideration of the plea had taken in ipse dixit manner without going proper reasoning rejected the plea of the Insurance Company suffers from arbitrariness. The District Redressal Fourm ought to have taken into the provisions of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 inasmuchas the District Redressal Forum has not taken into consideration as to whether T.Ali Ao is entitled to any relief in view of the fact that the driver and helper are involved in selling the fuel and throwing the vehicle in such a manner to give the impression of the accident of vehicle. In fact the vehicle had not met with an accident and the view has been recorded in the investigation report by the police for that the driver and helper are facing criminal case. This aspect is required to be looked into by the Commission, looking to the provision of insurance contract in between the parties. So this part also needs to be examined by the District Commission in as much as the District Commission would call the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their respective case.

     Accordingly, the order of the District Redressal Forum passed in Consumer Complaint Case No 7/2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Redressal Forum to decide the case afresh, giving liberty to the parties which if they so like  may file fresh documents and may also give oral and documentary evidence. Both the appeals are allowed. It is an open remand not confined to the particular point.