State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nucore Transformers Pvt. Ltd. vs Oic & Ors. on 17 April, 2026
FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026
NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 04.05.2022
Date of Hearing: 11.02.2026
Date of Decision: 17.04.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 68/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS AR/ DIRECTOR,
HAVING OFFICE AT: FLAT NO. 208,
IIND FLOOR, VISHAL TOWER,
DISTRICT CENTRE, JANAKPURI,
NEW DELHI - 110058.
(Through: Mr. Kabir Singh Sudan, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGD. & HEAD OFFICE AT-25/27,
ASAF ALI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110002.
(Through: Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Chandna, Advocate)
2. OM FREIGHT FORWARDERS PVT. LTD.,
OM HOUSE, 847/2 MAIN VASANT KUNJ,
ROAD, MATA CHOWK, MAHIPALPUR, DELHI.
3. HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARINE (I) PVT. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, 1 COMMUNITY CENTRE,
NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI.
(Through: Lloyd and Johnson)
4. MR. R.M. KAUL, SURVEYOR,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
T-C-/20, GROUND FLOOR, VASANT VIHAR.
(Respondent No. 4 in Person)
...Respondents
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 23
FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026
NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. Kabir Singh Sudan, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Chandna, counsel for the Respondent no. 1.
Appeared through VC.
None for the Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Aman Prasad, counsel for the Respondent no. 3. Appeared
through VC.
Respondent no 4. (Mr. R.M. Kaul) in person.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
(PRESIDENT)
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"...2. In March/April 2016 complainant negotiated with OP5 for supply of Aluminum and Copper Wire Scrap material from China and accordingly placed order for the same. OP5 raised Performa invoice dated 21.03.2016 for supply of 25 Mts of Copper Wires Scrap amounting to USD 96,875/-. Goods were duly inspected before shipment and pre-shipment inspection certificate was issued. After inspection and certification OP5 raised a commercial invoice no. JRL0237/2016 dated 05.04.2016 for 25.12 mts for the supply of the goods i.e. Copper wire scrap to the complainant along with the requisite packing list. Complainant got the consignment of 25.12 mts of Copper wire scrap as per invoice referred above dated 05.04.2016 insured for a sum of INR 68,99,252/- from OP1 vide insurance policy bearing no. 131201/21/2017/3 dated 07.04.2016. Complainant supplied all the requisite documents to OP1. Subsequent to issuance of pre-shipment inspection certificate and certificate of quality, OP2 issued the in house Bill of Lading bearing no. OMCH000832A and OP3 issued Master Bill of Lading bearing no. XGID0415773 indicating the place of delivery as ICD Dadri, India and reflecting the original seal for Copper wire scrap. However, shockingly on arrival of the cargo to the destination port original seal was ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
found to be replaced with a false and fabricated seal. Complainant with other stakeholders conducted joint inspection and during inspection it was noted that-
a) The seal no. HD2868404/080471 had been replaced with a false and fabricated Seal no. 314853 on the container nо. THRU2258966.
b) The goods being 25.12 mts of Copper wire scrap were missing and instead the container was found to have cement bricks, wooden pallets and mere 100 grams Copper wire.
Complainant lodged a claim of Rs. 68,99,252/- being the sum insured, with OP1 but OP1 did not the surveyor report to the complainant and arbitrarily closed the case under the head "no claim". Complainant has prayed to this commission to-
a) "To set aside the repudiation letter dated 31.03.2019 issued by the Respondent No. 1;
b) To award an amount of Rs. 68,99,252/-(being the sum insured) along with interest @ 18% p.a., starting from the date of submission of claim till actual payment;
c) To direct the Respondent No. 4 to refund back the amount being charged as the Surveyor fees along with interest @ 18% p.a., starting from the date of the payment till actual payment;
d) To direct the Respondent no. 1and Respondent no. 4 to jointly pay an amount of INR 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs only) on account of mental agony, harassment and unfair practice of the Respondent no. 1 and Respondent no. 4;"
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 14.03.2022, whereby it held as under:
"3. We have pursued the material available on record. We have also heard Adv. Aditya Trehan, Counsel for the complainant, Adv. Hardik Vashisht, Counsel for the OP3 and Adv. Bhupesh Kumar Chandna, Counsel for the OP1.
ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026
NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
4. Ld. Counsel for the OP submitted that the complainant is a huge commercial organization as is evident from its profile in the instant case and having availed services of the OP for commercial purpose complainant is not a consumer under the Act.
5. Consumer is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as under;-
"(d) "consumer" means any person who-
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment"
6. Hon. Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v/s. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583 discussed the scheme of the Act and observed that ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
"After good amount of consultation with governments and international organizations, the Secretary General of United Nations submitted draft guidelines for consumer protection to the Economic and Social Council (UNESCO) in 1983. After extensive discussions and negotiations among governments on the scope and content of the guidelines, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the guidelines for consumer protection by consensus on 9th April 1985 (General Assembly Resolution CC/13/270 No.39/248). The guidelines issued are placed under four heads, viz., objectives, general principles, guidelines and international cooperation. Para 1 of the head "objectives" reads as under: Taking into account the interests and needs of consumers in all countries, particularly those in developing countries, recognizing consumers often face imbalances in economic terms, educational level, and bargaining power and bearing in mind that consumer should have the right of access to non-hazardous products, as well as the importance of promoting just, equitable and sustainable economic and social development, these guidelines for consumer protection have the following objectives: (a) To assist countries in achieving or maintaining adequate protection for their population as consumers; (b) to facilitate production and distribution patterns responsive to the needs and desires of consumers; (c) to encourage high levels of ethical conduct for those engaged in the production and distribution of goods and services to consumers."
7. Hon. Apex Court also made clear as to what is "Commercial purpose"
"The explanation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression "commercial purpose" a case of exception to an exception. Let us elaborate:
ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026
NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
a person who buys a typewriter or a car and uses them for his personal use is certainly a consumer but a person who buys a typewriter or a car for typing others' work for consideration or for plying the car as a taxi can be said to be using the typewriter/car for a commercial purpose. The explanation however clarifies that in certain situations, purchase of goods for "commercial purpose would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression "consumer". If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a "consumer". In the illustration given above, if the purchaser himself works on typewriter or plies the car as a taxi himself, he does not cease to be a consumer. In other words, if the buyer of goods uses them himself, ie., by self- employment, for earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a "commercial purpose" and he does not cease to be a consumer for the purposes of the Act. The explanation reduces the question, what is a "commercial purpose", to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz., "uses them by himself", "exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood" and "by means of self-employment" make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood. A few more illustrations would serve to emphasis what we say. A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
operate it himself for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. (In the above illustrations, if such buyer takes the assistance of one or two persons to assist/help him in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer.) As against this a person who purchases an auto- rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied or operated exclusively by another person would not be a consumer. This is the necessary limitation flowing from the expressions 'used by him", and "by means of self-employment" in the explanation. The ambiguity in the meaning of the words "for the purpose of earning his livelihood" is explained and clarified by the other two sets of words."
8. Relying on the judgment of the Hon. Apex Court in Laxmi Engg Works, (Supra) in Om Metals-SPML(JV) vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., complaint no. 233/2013 vide its order dated 08.09.2021, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the Complainant company in that case had a huge portfolio as it was involved in the business of Hydro mechanical equipment, turnkey solutions for steel fabrication, Hydro power developments, Real Estate Leasing, Finance etc. The insurance policy in question was taken by the complainant for the work at Teesta Low Dam project and by such work the complainant was not only earning livelihood but was also providing employment to many persons. That being the case, it was observed that the complainant did not fall within the explanation to Section 2(1) (d) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on the judgement of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Harsolia Motors vs National Insurance Company Ltd. 1 (2005) CPJ 27 (NC) wherein it was observed that "Contract of insurance generally belongs to general category of contract of indemnity, that services may be for any connected commercial activity, yet it would be within ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986." It was further observed that "Policy is only for indemnification of actual loss, and not intended to generate profit."
9. Judgement of National Commission passed in Harsolia Motors (Supra) was discussed in the judgement of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai Consumer Welfare Association Oriental Insurance Company. CC/13/270 dated in State 27.07.2017. Hon. Commission noted that Hon. Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 7186- 7187/2004 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Harsolia Motors and Anr by its order dated 15th April 2005 stayed the operation of the order of National Commission in Harsolia Motors Case.
In view of the stay granted by Hon. Apex Court, it was held by State Commission, that "now the point is open whether services of insurance availed by commercial organisation is commercial activity or not?"
10. Relying on the judgement of Hon. Apex Court in Laxmi Engg Works (Supra) it was observed that insurance is also like any other services, namely, banking etc. and that if those services are availed by a commercial organisation then those services be considered as commercial activity, State Commission in this regard discussed the judgement of Hon. National Commission itself qua banking. In Sushma Goel v/s. Punjab National Bank, II(2011) CPJ 270 (NC) Sushma Goel, the complainant was an authorised agent of M/s Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. She opened a current account in the name of M/s Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. with Punjab National Bank. On 12/06/2008 when she got her passbook updated she found that Rs.2,35,000/- had been transferred from the account through two cheques and deposited in the saving bank account of one Mr. Ranjit Singh on 11/06/2008. Consumer complaint was filed by her for M/s Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. against Punjab ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
National Bank claiming said amount of Rs.2,35,000/- with interest, District Forum allowed the consumer complaint. In appeal, State Commission, Uttarakhand set aside the said order. Matter went to the National Commission. While dismissing Revision Petition, National Commission observed that from the evidence produced on behalf of the complainant before the Fora, it is abundantly clear that the entire matter in the complaint filed by Smt. Sushma Goel relates to operation of a bank account maintained by a commercial organisation for a commercial purpose. Because the Bank account was maintained by a commercial organisation, services of the bank was branded as for commercial purpose and hence, complainant in the said case was not considered as consumer under the Act. Hon. State Commission then observed that Insurance services are also services and if those services are availed by commercial organisation then those services be considered as commercial activity like that of banking services. It was held that if commercial organisation obtains insurance policy for protection of its building. machinery, then by that policy commercial organisation is protecting its assets and hence, taking policy for protecting assets of commercial organisation is certainly a commercial activity.
11. It was also observed that the purpose for which the services are availed is decisive and that if services are to get availed by commercial organisation reimbursement of the loss if suffered, in that case, commercial organisation will be reimbursed of the loss, if any, suffered during the period of policy and as a consequence "Commercial organisation is reducing the losses or wiping out the entire loss with the help of amount which the organisation will get on the basis of insurance policy. If that is so, then it is very clear that taking of insurance policy for the building, machinery and other ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
assets, stacks of the commercial organisation is certainly a commercial activity."
Thus taking insurance policy for protecting the property or interests of commercial organisation is part of commercial activity. It was observed by State Commission that when the insured gets the amount on the basis of policy, either the losses are reduced to some extent or wiped out entirely or even profit can be earned on the basis of such policy. To make the point more clear State Commission gave an illustration. If a person takes an insurance policy for his residential house or his car, the insured may get the amount insured if the house or car suffers damage. In such cases, insurance policy cannot be said to be obtained for commercial purpose. However, when the same person takes policy for his industry for protecting assets of his industry i.e. building, machinery and stocks, in that case, said person may get amount which will reduce his loss in business or may wipe out the entire loss or he may even get profit on the basis of said policy and hence, such type of policy is certainly a commercial activity as it is a part of his business.
12. "Act provides for business to consumer disputes and not business to business disputes"
Hon. State Commission while referring to Hon. Apex Court judgement in Laxmi Engg Works (Supra) observed that "We find that the reference "recognising that consumer often face imbalances in economic terms" certainly relates to individual person. It is germane to note that protection for their population as consumers as referred in the objectives above, denotes that population means public at general as a consumer. Thus, we find that here while considering consumer, a common person is the centre for consideration. Nowhere it is considered an artificial person/commercial organisation as ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
a consumer while considering scheme of the Act. The objectives also to render inexpensive and speedy remedy is necessary. It was further observed by the Apex Court that indeed the entire act revolves around the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. The act provides for "business to consumer" disputes and not for "business to business" disputes. We find that those observations are very material for deciding the issue before us. The act provides for "business to consumer disputes. It means on one side business organisation running business such as Insurance Company or other Companies providing services and on other side an individual person and that is why words are used "business to consumer"
disputes. It was specifically mentioned that the act provides not for "business to business disputes. It means it is not expected under the provisions of the act that both parties are running a business. If that is so then dispute between "business to business" is not expected to cover under the act as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court."
Recently, Hon. Apex Court vide its order 22.02.2022 in Shrikant G Mantri vs Punjab National Bank Civil Appeal No. 11397 of 2016 held that ordinarily, "commercial purpose" is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities. The facts of the case before the Hon, Apex Court were that appellant was engaged in the profession of stock-broker, much before he availed of service of overdraft facility from the respondent- Bank. He was also acting as a stock-broker for the respondent-Bank. He took overdraft facility and also sought enhancement of the same from time to time in ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
furtherance of his business as a stock-broker. Hon. Apex Court observed that
46.... We have elaborately discussed the legislative history as to how Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act has come in its present form from the original form. The amendments incorporated by the 1993 Amendment Act as well as by the 2002 Amendment Act would clearly show that the legislative intent is to keep the commercial transactions out of the purview of the said Act to a person who enters into such commercial transactions, when he uses such goods or avails such services exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
47. In the present case, the Commission has come to a finding that the appellant had opened an account with the respondent-Bank, took overdraft facility to expand his business profits, and subsequently from time to time the overdraft facility was enhanced so as to further expand his business and increase his profits. The relations between the appellant and the respondent is purely "business to business"
relationship. As such, the transactions would clearly come within the ambit of 'commercial purpose'. It cannot be said that the services were availed "exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood" "by means of self- employment". If the interpretation as sought to be placed by the appellant is to be accepted, then the 'business to business' disputes would also have to be construed as consumer disputes, thereby defeating the very purpose of providing speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes.
ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026
NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
48. We, therefore, find no error with the findings of the Commission In any case, the Commission has already granted liberty to the appellant to avail of his remedy by approaching the appropriate forum, having jurisdiction.
13. Common man denied quick relief Hon. State Commission in Consumer Welfare Association(supra) further observed that "It is germane to note that more than 90% consumer complaints against the Insurance Companies are by the commercial organisation and they are depriving rights of the common man who is a real consumer of the Insurance Companies by occupying most of the field.
Thus, common man is deprived of getting quick relief.
14. After analyzing various case law State Commission held that it is clear that when a commercial organisation obtains an insurance policy for protection of its assets either the losses are reduced to some extent or wiped out completely or even profit can be earned on such policy. It was held that service of insurance company if availed for protection of business, assets of business then it is certainly a commercial purpose.
15. In Satyawati Chemicals vs Transparent Energy System Pvt Ltd., Complaint case No. CC/08/2021 decided on 27.06.2013 111(2013) CPJ 4B(CN)(Mah) Complaint pertained to installation of industrial refrigeration plant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opponent compensation was claimed. Hon. State Commission discussed the decision of the Hon. National Commission in Horsolia Motors (Supra) and observed "The Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of Hon'ble National Commission in. Harsolia Motors V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in I(2005) CPJ 27 (NC), wherein the National Commission has observed that goods ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
purchased or services hired a should be used in activity directly intended to generate profit which is the main aim of commercial purpose. The Advocate contended that in the present complaint the goods are purchased, the machinery is purchased, however, it is not intended to generate the profit, it is a facility and hence, the Complainant is a 'Consumer'. The Advocate drawn our attention to paragraph 23 of the order wherein the National Commission has observed that if the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose then such consumer would be excluded within the coverage of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Such illustration could be that 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". The Ld. Advocate has tried to argue that in the observation of the National Commission in the instant judgement there is further observation wherein it is observed 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 for his office, it cannot be held to be for commercial purpose". The Advocate further tried to argue that the machinery purchased is a refrigeration machinery and it will come under the ambit of aforesaid observations of the National Commission. We are unable to digest the argument of the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. The machinery purchased is for manufacturing and its purpose is to earn profit."
16. In M/s Nalwa Steel and Power Ltd. vs. State Bank of India 2015 SCC On-Line NCDRC 3150 Complainant company imported 2000 MT of scrap. Complainant ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
obtained the services of OP Bank for obtaining letter of credit in favour of the supplier. Alleging deficiency in service since documents including shipping documents were not properly scrutinised by the Bank before honouring letter of credit complaint was filed. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party, inter-alia on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer, since the transaction for import of scrap was for commercial purpose and earning profits by the complainant company.
Hon. National Commission dismissed the complaint by holding that complainant is not a consumer with the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act 1986. It was observed that "The next question which comes up for consideration is as to whether the complainant- company falls within the scope of the explanation attached below Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. In my view, use of the expression "exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-
employment", in the explanation leaves no reasonable doubt that the aforesaid provision is made only for a natural person and not for a juristic person such as a company. The aforesaid explanation applies in the case of an individual who seeks to earn his livelihood by means of self-employment, using or availing the services in question. Therefore, he cannot be said that the complainant company was earning its livelihood by means of self-employment by utilising the credit limit sanctioned by the bank for the purpose of enabling it to trade in foreign currencies."
It was also observed that complainant is not a consumer because scrap was sought to be imported by the complainant with a view to generate profit which was a commercial activity intended to generate profit. It was clearly held that transaction ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
of imports of goods into India is an activity directly intended to generate profit.
17. Complainant in the instant case is a high profiled company. It is importing goods worth crores of INR from abroad to India. It is certainly not trading for "earning its livelihood by way of self- employment". Import of goods by the complainant into India was held to be a commercial activity directly intended to generate profit in M/s Nalwa Steel and Power Ltd. (Supra). Complainant availed services of OP for protection of its business assets with a view to minimise its loss and to optimise its profits which is a commercial purpose and accordingly complainant is not a consumer under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act. The dispute raised by the complainant company as involved in the instant case is a dispute between "business to business" and is not covered under the Act as observed by Hon, Apex Court in Laxmi Engg. Works (Supra). The instant complaint is therefore dismissed as not maintainable before Consumer Commission under the Act."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present appeal, contending that the District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint case of the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant does not fall within the definition of Consumer. The counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the District Commission has failed to consider that the insurance policy in question was taken to cover the envisaged risks and not for any commercial/profit making purpose. Pressing the aforesaid submission, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission.
4. Notice of the present Appeal was issued upon the Respondents, wherein the Reply to the present Appeal was filed by the Respondent No. 3 and 4. On the other hand, the Respondent No 1 and Respondent No. 2 has failed to file the reply to the present Appeal.
ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026
NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
5. The Respondent No. 3 has filed his reply, denying all the contentions and submissions of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said impugned order. The counsel for the Respondent no. 1 also submitted that the Appellant has sought to harp on the judgment passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Harsolia judgment, however, the said reliance is misplaced and incorrect since the operation of said judgment has been stayed vide order dated 15.04.2005 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP. (C) 7186-7187/2005. It is further submitted that explanation given in Harsolia judgment is not laying down the correct position of law much less settled and cannot be taken to be a binding precedent.
6. The Respondent No. 4 has also filed his reply, denying all the contentions and submissions of the Appellant and submitted that the present appeal of the Appellant lacks merits and 3 claims lodged by them totaling 1.4 crores were bereft of substantiation in the District Commission. The entire set of three complaints was misconceived and dismissed vide separate reasoned judgments. Pressing the aforesaid, the Respondent No. 4 submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said impugned order.
7. Written Arguments has been filed by the Appellant wherein the contents of the Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered. The counsel for the Appellant has relied on the following judgments in support of his case:
i. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5352-5353 of 2007 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Harsolia Motors and Ors. Dated 13.04.2023 ii. Integrated Solution and Ors. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported as MANU/CF/0087/2022.
iii. HEMKUNT Coated Paper Pvt. Ltd. Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. And Ors. reported as MANU/CF/0051/2022 ALLOWED PAGE 17 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
iv. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. Vs Roxy Color Lab., reported as MANU/CF/0053/2022.
8. Despite multiple opportunities, the Respondent no. 1 and 2 has failed to file the written submissions. Therefore, the right of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 to the file written arguments was closed vide order dated 16.12.2025 and 15.07.2025. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 16.12.2025 submitted that they do not wish to file the written arguments in the present case as the reply has already been filed.
9. Written Arguments has been filed by the Respondent No. 4 wherein the contents of Reply to the Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered.
10. We have perused the material available on record.
11. The main question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint of the Appellant/Complainant on the ground that the Appellant does not fall within the definition of Consumer or whether the services in question were availed for a commercial purpose, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora.
12. On perusal of record, it is admitted that the Appellant had obtained an insurance policy from the Respondent No. 1 bearing policy no. 131201/21/2017/3 dated 07.04.2016 for a sum of Rs. 68,99,252/- in respect of a consignment of 25.12 metric tonnes of copper wire scrap purchased vide invoice dated 05.04.2016. The Appellant duly complied with all formalities and furnished the requisite documents to the Respondent No. 1. After pre-shipment inspection and certification of quality, the shipment was carried under an in-house Bill of Lading issued by Respondent No. 2 and a Master Bill of Lading issued by Respondent No. 3, indicating the place of delivery as ICD Dadri, India, with the container bearing the original seal at the time of dispatch.
ALLOWED PAGE 18 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026
NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
13. However, upon arrival of the consignment at the destination port, it was discovered that the original seal of the container had been tampered with and replaced by a false and fabricated seal. Further, a joint inspection conducted by the Appellant along with other stakeholders revealed that the original seal bearing no. HD2868404/080471 had been substituted with seal no. 314853 on container no. THRU2258966. More alarmingly, the insured goods i.e., 25.12 metric tonnes of copper wire scrap were found missing, and instead the container contained cement bricks, wooden pallets, and only about 100 grams of copper wire. Aggrieved from which, the Appellant lodged an insurance claim for the insured amount of Rs.68,99,252/- with the Respondent No. 1. However, the claim of the Appellant was arbitrarily closed under the head "No Claim" by the Respondent No. 1 without any justified basis for repudiation.
14. Further, the District Commission, while placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Laxmi Engineering Works Vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute" reported as 1995 SCC (3) 583 and Civil Appeal No. 11397 of 2016 titled "Shrikant G. Mantri vs Punjab National Bank" decided on 22.02.2022 as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission in "Sushma Goel v. Punjab National Bank"
reported as II(2011) CPJ 270 NC and "M/s Nalwa Steel and Power Ltd. vs. State Bank of India" reported as 2015 SCC On-Line NCDRC 3150, observed that the Appellant, being a high-profile company engaged in import of goods worth crores of INR, cannot be said to be carrying on any activity for "earning its livelihood by way of self-employment."
15. The District Commission further held that the import of goods by the Appellant into India constitutes a commercial activity directly intended to generate profit, as also held in M/s Nalwa Steel and Power Ltd. (supra). The Appellant had availed the services of the Respondents for safeguarding its business assets with a view to minimise losses and maximise profits, which squarely falls within the ambit of "commercial ALLOWED PAGE 19 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
purpose" and lastly while relying upon the Laxmi Engg. Works (supra) held that the present case is a dispute between "business to business" and is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
16. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the District Commission has relied upon judicial precedents which are distinguishable on facts and context from the present case. The District Commission has also taken note of the judgment in Harsolia Motors and observed that the same stood stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the time of pronouncement of the impugned order. The case bearing Nos.5352-5353 of 2007 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsolia Motors has now been finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.04.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the similar issue involved in the present matter. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below for the ready reference herein:
"42. Thus, what is finally culled out is that each case has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances and what is to be examined is whether any activity or transaction is for commercial purpose to generate profits and there cannot be a straightjacket formula which can be adopted and every case has to be examined on the broad principles which have been laid down by this Court, of which detailed discussion has been made.
43. Applying the above principles in the present case, what needs to be determined is whether the insurance service had a close and direct nexus with the profit generating activity and whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose of the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the insured or to the beneficiary and our answer is in the negative and accordingly we are of the view that the complaint filed by the respondent insured herein has no close or direct ALLOWED PAGE 20 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
nexus with the profit generating activity and the claim of insurance is to indemnify the loss which the respondent insured had suffered and the Commission has rightly held that the respondent is a "consumer" under Section 2(1) (d) of the Act, 1986.
44. We further reiterate that ordinarily the nature of the insurance contract is always to indemnify the losses. Insurance contracts are contracts of indemnity whereby one undertakes to indemnify another against loss/damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event and is applicable only to some contingency or act likely to come in future.
45. This Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Levis Strauss (India) Private Limited10 has held as under:
"53.A contract of insurance is and always continues to be one for indemnity of the defined loss, no more no less. In the case of specific risks, such as those arising from loss due to fire, etc. the insured cannot profit and take advantage by double insurance. Long ago, Brett, LJ in Castellain v. Preston [Castellain v. Preston, (1883) 11 QBD 380] said that : (QBD p. 386) "..... the contract of insurance ... is a contract of indemnity.
... and that this contract means that the assured, in the case of loss ... shall be fully indemnified, but shall never be more than fully indemnified."
46. Thus, it can be concluded that in the instant case hiring of insurance policy is clearly an act for indemnifying a risk of loss/damages and there is no element of profit generation and still what has been expressed by this Court is illustrative; it will always open to be examined on the facts of each case, as to the transaction in reference to which the claim has been raised has any close and direct nexus with profit generating activity.
ALLOWED PAGE 21 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026
NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
47. We do not agree with the submission made on behalf of the appellant that if insurance claims are covered under the Act, 1986, then virtually all insurance matters will come within the purview of the Act, 1986 and this will render the Act, 2015 nugatory. In our view, both these Acts have different scope and ambit and have different remedial mechanism, are in different sphere having no internal corelationship."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the aforesaid case, observed that there cannot be any straightjacket formula to determine whether a transaction falls within the ambit of "commercial purpose" and each case has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances. It was held that the test to be applied is whether the activity or transaction has a close and direct nexus with profit-generating activity and whether the dominant purpose was to facilitate profit generation.
18. Applying these principles, it was concluded that hiring of an insurance policy is essentially an act of indemnifying risk of loss or damage and does not involve any element of profit generation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified that such determination is illustrative in nature and must always be examined on the facts of each case to ascertain whether the transaction has any close and direct nexus with profit-generating activity. In the present case also, the insurance policy is availed by the Appellant to cover the envisaged risk and not for any commercial/profit making purpose. Further, the insurance policy was availed only for indemnification of actual loss and not intended to generate profit.
19. Therefore, from the above discussion, we opine that the Appellant in the present case falls within the definition of Consumer as defined under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the District Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint of the Appellant.
20. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (Central) and the ALLOWED PAGE 22 OF 23 FA/68/2022 D.O.D.: 17.04.2026 NUCORE TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
matter is remanded to the District Commission, (Central), ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi to decide it upon merits.
21. Resultantly, the present Appeal stands allowed in the aforementioned terms.
22. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, (Central) on 18.05.2026.
23. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
24. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
25. Copy of the present Judgment be sent to the District Commission, (Central), ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
26. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
17.04.2026 LR-AJ ALLOWED PAGE 23 OF 23