National Insurance Co. Ltd.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 4506 OF 2010
(From the order dated 09.09.2010 in Appeal No.239/08 of Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi)
Ashish Vishwakarma
Prop. of M/s. Ashish Constructions
Ranchi Patna Road
P.O. Barhi
District Hazaribagh
… Petitioner
Vs
1. Branch Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ranchi-Patna Road
Post & District Hazaribagh
2. Branch Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ranchi-Patna Road
Post & District Hazaribagh
3. Branch Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Post-Korba
Chhattisgarh
4. Magma Leasing Ltd.
MAGMA HOUSE
24, Park Street
Kolkatta 16
West Bengal
… Respondents
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASSGUPTA,
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA,
MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Ms. Sanjana Bali, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, Advocate
For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
Pronounced on:_9th March, 2012
ORDER
ANUPAM DASGUPTA
This revision petition challenges the order dated 09.09.2010 of the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (in short, ‘the
State Commission’) in First Appeal No.239 of 2008. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant (petitioner
herein) against the order dated 28.05.08 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hazaribag (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer
Complaint No.25/2007.
2. The case of the petitioner before the District Forum was that Respondents No. 1 to 3 (the Insurance Company) were guilty of deficiency in service in
repudiating the insurance claim for the petitioner’s motor vehicle (Tipper Truck) which got burnt in a fire on 17.05.06 during the period of validity
of the insurance policy covering damage due to fire, etc. After considering the pleadings, evidence and documents produced by the parties, the District
Forum dismissed the complaint. This led to the above- mentioned appeal being filed by the petitioner/complainant.
3. We have heard Ms. Sanjana Bali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3.
4. The short point for consideration is whether the State Commission erred in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the motor
vehicle in question had been purchased for a commercial purpose and, therefore, the petitioner/complainant could not be treated as a “consumer” (in
accordance with the definition of the terms in section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986). In this context, Ms. Bali has pointed out
that this Commission, in the case of M/s. Harsolia Motors v National Insurance Company Ltd. [I (2005) CPJ 26 (NC)] has held that a contract of
insurance is a contract of indemnity and, therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. It has also been held
that the insured could not trade or carry out any commercial activity with regard to the insurance policy, being barred to do so under section 3 of the
Insurance Act, 1938.
5. The point urged by Ms. Bali is valid, as was fairly conceded by Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3.
6. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside in toto. The matter is
remanded back to the State Commission for fresh consideration and decision after hearing the parties. For this, the parties shall remain present before
the State Commission on 02.04.2012
……….…………………….
(ANUPAM DASGUPTA)
PRESIDING MEMBER
……….…………………….
( SURESH CHANDRA ) MEMBER
