State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ashok Kumar Garg & Brothers vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 13 December, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 13.12.2013 First Appeal No-426/2011 (Arising out of the order dated 25.07.2011 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi Complaint Case no. 268/2007) IN THE MATTER OF:- M/s Ashok Kumar Garg & Brothers D-186, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I New Delhi-110020 .Appellant VERSUS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. D.O: 17, D.M.A. House Medical Association Road Darya Ganj New Delhi-110002 Respondent CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President Ms. Salma Noor, Member
Sh. N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Ms. Salma Noor, Member
1) Present appeal is directed against the order dt. 25.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Tiz Hazari whereby the complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Insurance Company has been dismissed on the ground that the appellants are not consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, because they are engaged in the business of Sanitary goods and bathroom fittings for Commercial Purpose.
2) Aggrieved by the findings of the District Forum the appellant/complainant have come before us with the submission that the District Forum though referred to the decision of the Honble National Commission in HARSOLIA MOTORS Vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC) failed to appreciate the law laid down therein.
3) We have heard Sh. Ravi Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant and Sh. Harsh Kumar, Counsel for the respondent and also perused the cited case law. We have also considered the reasonings given by the District Forum to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant/complainant are not a consumer, in view of the definition of the term as discussed by the Honble Supreme Court in Economic Transport Corporation Vs Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.-I (2010) CPJ 4 (SC).
4) It appears that the District Forum has been misdirected on the facts of the two cited cases, i.e. M/s Harsolia Motros (Supra) and M/s Economic Transport Corporation (Supra). In Harsolia Motors case the Honble National Commission have considered the definition of consumer as per the amended Act, which excluded a person who avails services for any commercial purposes. Similar are the observations of Honble Supreme Court in Economic Transport Corporations case, which have been quoted by the District Forum in the impugned order, but without caring to look into the facts of the case and without appreciating the reasonings given in Para 21 in Harsolia Motors case, which is reproduced below:-
21-If the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose then such consumer would be excluded from the coverage of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Such illustration could be that a manufacturer who is producing one product A, for such production he may be required to purchase articles, which may be raw-material, then purchase of such articles would be for commercial purpose. As against this, the same manufacturer if he purchases a refrigerator, a television or an air conditioner for his use at his residence or even in his office, it cannot be held to be for commercial purpose and for this purpose he is entitled to approach the consumer forum under the Act.
5) Further in Para 23, Honble National Commission has observed that:-
23-Further, from the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that even taking wide meaning of the words for commercial purpose it would mean that goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose. But in a case where goods purchased or services hired in an activity which is not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be commercial purpose.
6) Having considered the facts of the case of appellant, we find that the District Forum has grossly erred in holding that the appellants are not the consumer as defined under the Act 1986 as amended. The decision as laid in Harsolia Motors case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, according to which as person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose; that the policy is only for indemnification and actual loss, not intended to generate profits. The appellants are accordingly held consumer as per definition of the term under the Act.
7) Allowing the appeal, therefore, we set-aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2011 passed in complaint case No. 268/2007 and remand the case to the District Forum-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi to decide the case on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum concerned on 17.02.2014.
8) A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
9) The FDR, if any, be returned to the appellant as per rules, after due formalities.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Ms. Salma Noor) Member (N P Kaushik) Member (Judicial) Fatima