State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Shri Garlic vs New India Assu. Co.Ltd. on 13 November, 2018
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
Appeal No.99 /2017.
M/s Shree Garlic,
30, Nai Krishi Upaj Mandal,
Mandsaur, through Proprietor
Jain Prakash, s/o Shri Bardichandraji
Jain. ... APPELLANT.
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
through Branch Manager,
Branch Office Nahta Chouraha,
Mhow - Neemuch Road,
Mandsaur (M.P.). ... RESPONDENT.
Date of ORDER WITH SIGNATURE Order of the Registrar Order on Office noting 13.11.2018 Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard.
Challenging the order dated 20th December, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandsaur (for short 'Forum') in Complaint Case No.76/2015 whereby the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant / complainant is not a consumer as also on the ground that for challenging the survey report the Forum has no
- 2- jurisdiction and the complainant is required to approach to Civil Court, the appellant has filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the parties are one on the point that both these reasonings given by the Forum for non-suiting the complainant are erroneous. According to them, the complaint can very well be entertained by the Forum in view of the law laid down by the National Commission in the case of Harsolia Motors versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC). They also stated that the finding of the Forum that it can not decide the quantum of compensation on the basis of survey report is also contrary to the law laid down by the National Commission in the case of Ram Jeevan Sharma versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2016 (1) CPR 663 (NC).
3. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties which are not opposed to each other.
4. In the case of Harsolia Motors (supra) the National Commission has held :
- 3- "12. Further, hiring of services of the Insurance Company by taking insurance policy by Complainants who are carrying on commercial activities cannot be held to be a commercial purpose. The policy is taken for reimbursement or for indemnity for the loss which may be suffered due to various perils. There is no question of trading or carrying on commerce in insurance policies by the insured. May be that insurance coverage is taken for commercial activity carried out by the insured."
6. In the case of Ram Jeevan Sharma (supra) the National has held that report of surveyor is very important and it can not be brushed aside until there are cogent reasons.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions and the law laid down by the National Commission, New Delhi in Harsolia Motors (supra) and Ram Jeevan Sharma (supra), we are of the view that impugned order is liable to be set-aside and is accordingly, set- aside.
8. In the result, the matter is remanded to the Forum for deciding the complaint on merits. Parties to appear before the Forum on 4th December, 2018. (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (S. D. Agarwal) (Dr.Monika Malik) PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER phadke