Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member, Anup K Thakur, Member
M/s. Avon Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Bajrangbali Transport Company Private Limited and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2976 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 06/01/2016 in Appeal No. 837/2012 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 5.4.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer complaint can be dismissed for misjoinder of parties and causes of action.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Transport services—Deficiency in service—Loss of furnace oil in Tanker accident—Claim repudiated on ground that limit of risk insured under policy had already been exhausted—Complaint dismissed by Fora below on ground that petitioner/complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on part of opposite parties—Consumer complaint filed by petitioner showing that he is aggrieved of repudiation of his insurance claim filed in respect of marine insurance policy taken by him and his second grievance is against opposite party no.1 transport company as also repudiation of insurance claim preferred by petitioner complainant under insurance policy in respect of subject vehicle taken by its owner—So far as claim of petitioner qua OP No.1 transport company is concerned, it is regarding failure of opposite party transport company to deliver subject furnace oil at premises of petitioner complainant—This cause of action is independent of cause of action for filing of complaint based upon Marine Insurance Policy purchased by the complainant—It is a clear case of misjoinder of parties and causes of action—Otherwise also, services of OP No.1 transport company was hired by him for transportation of furnace oil for use in his factory which is a commercial purpose—Complainant is not a consumer qua OP No.1 because he had hired / availed of services of OP No.1 for commercial purpose—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 10 to 14)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, Punjab dated 6.1.2016 in first appeal No.837/2012 whereby the State Commission on re-appreciation of evidence concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant dispatched the consignment of furnace oil weighing 15010 kgs. Purchased from M/s Indian Oil Corporation through the carrier opposite party No.1 for safe carriage and delivered at Ludhiana. It is the case of the petitioner that he had a marine insurance policy issued by National Insurance Co. Ltd., G.T. Road, Bansal Complex, Dholepur Chowk, Ludhiana. The tanker carrying the consignment met with an accident near Mustuana Sahib Gurudwara, Sangrur and turned turtle. As a consequence most of the furnace oil being carried in the tanker spilled and only a small quantity weighing 6400 kgs. was saved. The intimation about the accident was given by the opposite party No.1 carrier to the police and a shortage certificate was also issued. The petitioner filed the insurance claim under the marine insurance policy issued in his favour with the opposite party insurance company. The claim, however, was repudiated on the ground that the limit of risk insured under the policy had already been exhausted.
3. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner wrote letter to opposite party No.1 carrier calling upon him to make good the loss. Opposite party No.1 responded by informing that the vehicle carrying the subject furnace oil was insured with the National Insurance Company and the petitioner may recover the amount from the said insurance company. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an insurance claim under insurance policy No.401300/46/07/9700000076 issued by the respondent insurance company in favour of Rajvir Singh, owner of the tanker which was attached with opposite party No.1 transport company. The said insurance claim preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the insurance company on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the insurance company qua the above-noted insurance policy issued in favour of Rajvir Singh.
4. Being aggrieved of repudiation of his claim, the petitioner filed the consumer complaint in the concerned District Forum. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties resisted the consumer complaint on merits. They also took the plea that the complaint itself is barred by limitation.
5. The District Forum on consideration of pleadings of the parties and the evidence took the view that the petitioner/complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.
6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the State Commission, Punjab in appeal. The State Commission, Punjab on re-appreciation of evidence did not find merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
7. Alongwith revision petition, the petitioner has filed IA No. 10086 of 2016 seeking Condonation of delay of 141 days (145 days as per the Registry) in filing of the revision petition. Heard. Delay is condoned in the interest of justice.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission and perused the record.
9. Bare reading of the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner would show that he is aggrieved of repudiation of his insurance claim filed in respect of marine insurance policy taken by him and his second grievance is against the opposite party no.1 transport company as also the repudiation of insurance claim preferred by the petitioner complainant under the insurance policy in respect of subject vehicle taken by its owner Rajvir Singh Op no.3
10. As regards the grievance against repudiation of insurance claim under the marine insurance policy purchased by the petitioner, lear
