IMPORTANT POINT
Workers covered under Group Insurance Scheme/Group Personal Accident(N.T.D.) Scheme are not consumers under C.P. Act, 1986.

Arun Kumar Goel(Retd.), President-Appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondents before the District Forum, Una. By order dated 31.3.2003 in Consumer Complaint No. 111/2001 the same was dismissed. Admitted facts of this case are that appellant is a Government Contractor who had employed/contracted number of persons in connection with his business of constructing buildings etc. such as masons, barbender, carpenter, supervisors, labourers who had been deployed at various work places. He got these persons insured with respondent No.1 under Group Insurance Scheme/Group Personal Accident Scheme for the period 23.9.1999 to 229.2000. He paid premium of Rs. 5,292/- On 9.2.2000 at about 3.00 P.M. when construction/plaster work at S.V.S.D. College, Bhatoli was in progress, the scarf-holding suddenly broke down and 4 employees/labourers fell down and sustained grievous injuries. All of them were covered under the Insurance cover(supra). They were taken to the nearest B.B.M.B. Hospital at Nangal. On way one of them Chhotu Ram died whereas others were admitted and remained under treatment at B.B.M.B, Hospital and District Hospital, Una for fractures and other grievous injuries sustained by them. Respondents were informed on 11.2.2000 and necessary documents were also furnished to them. Respondents appointed Investigator. Further, according to the appellant, he had spent Rs. 1,00,000/- on medical treatment, payment of damages, funeral expenses of Chhotu Ram. In the aforesaid background compiaint was filed.

2. In our opinion, sole question involved in this case is as to whether appellant is a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) .of the Consumer Protection Act,• 1986 and the respondent-Insurance Company is service provider. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the next question to be determined in this appeal would be whether there was any deficiency in service, and if so to what extent, and to what relief the appellant is entitled to.

3. Appellant had admittedly obtained Group Insurance Scheme/Group Personal Accident(N.T.D.) Scheme, in respect of his workmen. This was done by him with a view to getting himself indemnified from the respondents in case of any mishap. Beneficiaries, if any, would be the persons injured and/or persons entitled for compensation in the case of deceased Chhotu Ram, that too under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in the proceedings before the Commissioner under this Act. We may mention in this behalf that the purpose of obtaining the policy was to ensure that appellant is not made liable for payment of compensation as per law to the injured/legal representative of the deceased but is indemnified by respondents. Therefore, we are not in a position to understand as to how the complaint was maintainable before the District Forum below. In the circumstances, in our opinion, complaint was rightly dismissed by the District Forum and present appeal is wholly misconceived which also merits dismissal, as the appellant is not a consumer under the Act of 1986,(supra). In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Forum below which needs to be upheld. ordered accordingly.

4. Before parting with this case, we may clarify that the legal representatives of the deceased workmen; and also the injured workmen in the present case will be entitled to have recourse under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner concerned, if• they have not already approached the said Forum, and in such a situation, this order will not come in their way.

No other point was urged.

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. Office will supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost as per rules.

Appeal dismissed.