The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company for the shortage in weight of the goods and the interpretation of the term 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

Ashok Bhan, President - Appellant Insurance Company which was the Opposite Party before the State Commission has filed these Appeals against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (in short, the State Commission ) in Complaint Case Nos. 31 and 32/99 wherein the State Commission allowing the complaints filed by the Respondent has directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 10,78,871 in Complaint No. 31/99 and Rs. 10,53,064 in complaint No. 32/99 to the Respondent along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization.

2. Since the question of law and facts involved in both these appeals are the same, we proceed to dispose them by a common order. Facts have been taken from First Appeal No. 296/07.

Facts:

3. Respondent/Complainant imported 800 metric tons of raw cashew nuts from Indonesia which were to be received by it at Tuticorine/Cochin Port. Respondent got the said goods insured from the Appellant for a sum of Rs. 2,85,00,000 to cover the risk of loss or damage on account of short receipt of goods or loss during the shipment. The goods were to be delivered to the Respondent in two parts from 14.1.1995 to 19.1.1995 and on 21.1.1995. On arrival of the goods at Tuticorine Port, it was noticed that goods received were short in weight by 30.590 metric tons. Respondent did not inform the Appellant about the loss and appointed its own surveyor to assess the loss. Thereafter, Respondent filed the claim of Rs. 10,89,768 being the value of 30.590 metric tons shortage with the Appellant Insurance Company but the same was not settled by it. Complainant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant.

4. Appellant, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement taking the preliminary objection that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint was barred by limitation. On merits, it was pleaded that if there was any deficit in the goods, the Respondent should have contacted the Appellant immediately for appointment of surveyor to assess the loss; that since no information was received from the Respondent about the loss, Appellant did not appoint the Surveyor and in the absence of Surveyor's report, the damage to the goods could not be assessed; that reliance could not be placed on the report of the Port Officer; that the Appellant was not liable to indemnify for the loss as the reduction in the weight of the goods was on account of evaporation of water from the cashew-nuts.

5. State Commission, after taking into consideration the facts, pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, recorded the finding that the reduction of 1% weight was due to evaporation of wetness from the cashew-nuts and remaining weight loss was on account of damage to the bags in which the goods were filled in. Accordingly, State Commission allowed the complaints and directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 10,78,871 in Complaint No. 31/99 and Rs. 10,53,064 in complaint No. 32/99 to the Respondent along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization.

State Commission held as under:

"It is not proved that at the time of sending goods from Indonesia goods in less weight were sent and, therefore, the say that less goods were sent is not believable. However, there appears to be deficit of 1% of the quantity of goods received less in weight on account of wetness and on account of the damage to the bags the goods found from the ship that also has been filed in local bags. Therefore, the complainant has proved the quantity of goods received less as stated in the complaint for which insurance policy was taken and considering the nature of goods according to the conditions of the insurance policy, it is accepted that 1% of the weight w