NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3958/2009

M. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

DR. A.M. KRISHNA

15 Feb 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 23 Oct 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3958/2009
(Against the Order dated 30/07/2009 in Appeal No. 2918/2009 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. M. RAMA KRISHNA REDDYS/o. m.v. Subba Reddy 7-1-212/A/40. Plot No.55. 1st Floor. Shivbagh Colony Ameerpet. Hyderabad-500016 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ORSDivisional Office Dwaraka Towers . 7, Roads. Kadapa-5160012. UNITED INDIA ISSURANCE C O. LTD. Regional Office. United India Towers.P.B. 1020, 3-5-817&818, Basheerabagh Hyderabad ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Mr.R.S. Singh, Advocate for DR. A.M. KRISHNA, Advocate
For the Respondent :MR. A.K. DE

Dated : 15 Feb 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          Complainant/petitioner had taken a Contractor All Risk (CAR) policy for insuring the safety of the material lying at the site while executing the civil work.  The material was washed away due to a cyclone.  Petitioner filed a complaint before the State Commission, which was dismissed on the ground that petitioner was not a ‘consumer’ as it was a commercial establishment.

          Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgement of this Commission in M/s.Harsolia Motors vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (F.A.159/2004 and two other connected Appeals decided on 3.12.2004) wherein it has been held that persons similarly placed to the petitioner would be entitled to maintain their complaint for indemnification of loss under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act in so far as the insurance companies are concerned.

          The judgement of the State Commission runs counter to the decision of this Commission in the aforesaid Appeals.

          For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the State Commission in complaint is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission for deciding it afresh on merits taking the petitioner to be a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act.

          Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 7.4.2010.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER