Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/704

R.K. PACKERS & MOVERS & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIKAS MALIK - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                     

Date of Decision: 12.01.2016

 

First Appeal No. 70/2012

 

(Arising out of the order dated 18.01.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 384/2007 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi)

In the matter of:

M/s Chlorochem Industries

G-1/2918, Matsaya Industrial Area

Alwar, Rajasthan-301 030                                               .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road

New Delhi-110002

 

Also at:

 

12, Jain Bhawan

S. Bhagat Singh Marg

Gole Market

New Delhi-110001                                                                   ..........Respondent                 

                                                                  

CORAM

 

O P GUPTA                              -                  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

O P GUPTA -  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.      The short question involved in the present appeal is as to whether bar of the commercial purpose is applicable in case against insurance company also. Facts giving rise to the same are that the appellant filed a Complaint Case No. 384/2007 which was dismissed by the District Forum (North) vide order dated 18.01.2012 on the ground that the appellant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant was engaged in manufacturing of industrial gases and allied products. It took Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the respondent to safeguard its plant/machinery, stock and building situated at Alwar against fire, earthquake and flood. The policy was for Rs. 57,67,800/- and was for the period from 02.05.2005 to 01.05.2006. The incident of fire took place during the period of policy.
2.     OP filed written statement pleading that entire amount of claim has already been received by the complainant vide cheque dated 06.01.2006 for Rs. 29,13,328/- and another cheque dated 11.09.2006 for Rs. 5,71,204. The complainant is not a consumer.
3.     Complainant filed rejoinder. Both the parties filed evidence by way of affidavit. Written submissions were filed.
4.     The complainant relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Harsolia Motors Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. I (2005) CPJ 27 in which it was held that the contract of insurance entered into by the commercial entity come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The same was distinguished by the Ld. District Forum on the ground that amendment took place in the year 2002 in the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d).
5.     We do not feel that amendment of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act has any effect in the present case. Infact the counsel for the respondent could not support the impugned order.
6.     The appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum (North) for decision on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum concerned on 10.02.2016.
7.     Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law and one copy be sent to the District Forum concerned for information.
8.     FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.
9.     The file be consigned to Records.

 

 

(O P GUPTA)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)