//
you're reading...
legal issues

National consumer disputes redressal coammission =contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and as such the question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage arise.fire accident claim of damage.

The National Insurance numbercard issued by th...

Image via Wikipedia

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

  1. 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

 

  1. 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 DisputesRedressal 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 forrespondents 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

k

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,107 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: