Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President—While impugning the order passed by District Forum, Sirmour at Nahan in Complaint No.07/2007, on 17.12.2008, Mr. Bagga, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order in no circumstances can be sustained. Per him, respondent had insured 35 workmen employed in his factory whereas it had come to the notice of his client that number of workmen actually working in the factory at times was 66, 59 and 49. Thus according to Mr. Bagga, policy of insurance stood violated and the appellant has wrongly been held liable to indemnify the respondent.

2. Further plea urged by Mr. Bagga was that the complaint was not maintainable because the respondent was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and his client was not providing any service so as to hold it as a service provider within the meaning of Section 2(1) (o) of the said Act of 1986. Mr. Bagga also drew our attention to the provisions of Section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and urged that in the light of this Section also the respondent was not liable to get the benefit of the policy that was obtained from