Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Mrs. Saroj Rajwade & Mr. N.K. Vaidya, Members
NARENDRA SINGH—Appellant
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 181 of 1996—Decided on 10.10.1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Mohan Chonksey, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. S.K. Menon, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(d) and 15 - Insurance - Complaint dismissed by District Forum on grounds that complainant not consumer - Repudiation of claim by Insurance Company justified as persons travelling in truck passengers and not employees coming under purview of Workmans Compensation Act - Appeal - Finding of Forum that complainant not consumer is not correct - Provision of facilities in connection with insurance is "service" - Complainant Consumer even if vehicle meant for commercial purpose - Insurance company cannot repudiate contract as fact of their being passengers or coolies does not make any difference to risk involved.
Held: This finding of the Forum that the complainant is not a consumer is not correct. The condition of not being "for commercial purpose" applies only in case of purchase of "goods". There is no such condition for "service" hired or availed of. The provision of facilities in connection with insurance is a "service". Hence, the complainant is very much consumer, even if the vehicle was meant for commercial use. (Para 2)
Result: Appeal allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
The exclusion term of the Insurance Policy must be read down so as to serve the main purpose of the policy that is to indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle.
Mr. N.K. Vaidya, Member—This is an appeal filed by the complainant against the order dated 19.1.1996 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chattarpur in their Case No. 28/93 dismissing the complaint on two grounds-firstly that the complainant is not a consumer and secondly that the repudiation of the claim was justified as the three persons travelling in the truck were passengers and not the employees coming under the purview of Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. This finding of the Forum that the complainant is not a consumer is not correct. The condition of not being "for commercial purpose" applies only in case of purchase of "goods". There is no such condition for "service" hired or availed of. The provision of facitilities in connection with insurance is a "service". Hence, the complainant is very much consumer, even if the vehicle was meant for commerical use.
3. So far as this order of the Forum is concerned, that the three persons travelling in the truck were passengers and not employees of the complainant coming under purview of Workmen's Compensation Act, and therefore, the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant, we find that in Civil Appeal No. 6296 decided on 20.5.1996 [(1996) 4 SCC 667] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given directives as under :
"that it cannot be a ground for Insurance Company to repudiate the contract as the fact of their being passengers or coolies does not make any difference to the risk involved. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract. The exclusion term of the insurance policy must be read down so as to serve the main purpose of the pelicy that is to indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle."
4. In view or the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we accept this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and remand the case to the District Forum for disposal in respect of compensation, etc. to be awarded to the complainant after giving due opportunity to both the parties of being heard.
Order set aside.
_
