No. 6/29.11.2011.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

This revisional application is directed against the order dated 24.01.2011 passed in the complaint case whereby the complaint petition was not admitted for hearing on the ground that the same was not maintainable in law.  The said order substantially was in the form of rejection of the complaint and following the principle as incorporated in the Civil Procedure Code, such an order is an appellable order.  Being faced with such a situation the revisional petitioner has filed an application for conversion of the said revisional application into an appeal as the said revisional application has been preferred within the period prescribed for filing of the appeal against the said order.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the parties we allow the said application for conversion and treat this revisional application as the memo of appeal against the said order dated 24.01.2011.

In presence of the parties and on their consent the appeal is taken up for final disposal.  Complainant namely Bothra Automotives Pvt. Ltd. took a Motor B Insurance Policy for covering the transit of new motor cars from the workshops of the dealer to the showroom of the Complainant including demonstration drive of new motor vehicles.  Said Insurance Policy was purchased for covering the actual loss and damage that may be suffered by the Insured regarding the motor cars that are covered under the said Insurance Policy while in transit from the workshop of the dealer to the showroom of the Complainant and during demonstration drive for the purpose of sale.  The complaint arose in respect of deficiency of service as alleged for not settling the claim that has been raised by the Complainant in respect of such Insurance Policy.  Evidently, the Complainant is carrying on the business of selling new cars.  The Ld. Forum below in view of such carrying on of the business of selling of new cars by the Complainant has held that such insurance cover for the cars while in transit from the workshop of the dealer to the showroom of the Complainant would be treated as for commercial purpose and accordingly rejected the complaint case.

Upon going through the materials on record we are convinced that the insurance cover against which the claim has been raised by the Complainant was not taken by the Complainant for any commercial purposes.  The Complainant has also not taken such insurance cover for dealing with the same and/or for re-selling or for any other commercial purposes.  On the contrary, such insurance cover has been taken by the Complainant for covering the risk of the motor cars during transit from the workshop of the dealer to the showroom of the Complainant.  It is clearly established from the complaint itself that the Complainant is carrying on business of selling new motor cars and not in any manner with the insurance policy that has been taken by the Complainant for covering the risk as aforesaid. 

For the reasons as aforesaid we are of the view that the rejection of the complaint on the ground as aforesaid was absolutely illegal.  Hence the impugned order is set aside.  The complaint case is sent back on remand for fresh disposal on merits.

The appeal is thus allowed.  There will be no order as to costs.