V. Balakrishna Eradi, President—This is an appeal filed by the complainant in Case No. 29 of 1990 on the file of the State Commission. Uttar Pradesh, against the Order dated March 7, 1990 passed by the State Commission dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was not entertainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Two reasons have been stated by the State Commission in support of its aforesaid conclusion. Firstly, it was held that since the dispute raised in the complaint pertained to the return of premium paid on an insurance policy it did not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The second ground mentioned by the State Commission is that the expression "unfair trade practice" relates only to purchase of goods and not to 'deficiency' in a transaction of hiring of service and consequently the grievance put forward by the complainant could not be regarded as one relating to ‘unfair trade practice’. After having heard both sides, we have come to the conclusion that both aforesaid grounds set out by the State Commission are incorrect and untenable in law.

2. The complainant (appellant) is a company dealing in oil products and in connection with th