ORDER

Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member.—These cross appeals have been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 23.03.2015 of the State Commission in complaint No.05 of 2014, whereby the complaint was allowed.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for M/s E.R. Motors (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) and learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurance company’) and perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 23.03.2015 of the State Commission.

The complainant has filed appeal No.357 of 2015 for enhancement of compensation while the insurance company has filed appeal No.435 of 2015 seeking setting aside of the order dated 23.03.2015 of the State Commission.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had set up a service centre for providing service to vehicles, manufactured by Tata Motors, by obtaining finance of Rs.45 lakh through cash credit limit from Punjab National Bank, Sulhi. The complainant constructed building and also purchased machinery and the plant for running the service station. He had also stock of spare parts, lubricants and other items, required for service / repair of vehicle. The building, the plant and machinery and the stock of spare parts, lubricants etc. were insured with the insurance company. It is alleged that the building and the plant and machinery were insured for a sum of Rs.40 lakh each, while spare parts, lubricants etc. forming stock-in-trade, were insured for a sum of Rs.60 lakh. The policy was valid for the period from 19.11.2012 to 18.11.2013. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, in the intervening night of 14th and 15th April, 2013 about 1.30 a.m., a fire broke out in the service centre of the complainant and the entire stock-in-trade worth Rs.74,71,263/-, the plant and machinery worth Rs.14,15,100/- had been damaged. The building also sustained loss to the tune of Rs.33,62,500/-. The police and the insurance company were informed about the fire incident. The insurance company appointed a surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.15,64,875/- towards building, Rs.5,20,687/- towards the plant and machinery and Rs.19,58,720/- for the stock-in-trade. It is further alleged that the complainant had received a letter from the bank intimating the complainant that the insurance company had finalized his claim and he should sign the discharge voucher but the amount which was paid by the insurance company was not mentioned in the letter. Hence, the complainant visited the bank where he was told that the insurance company had prepared to pay Rs.35 lakh in all. The complainant alleged that he was forced to put his signature on the discharge voucher as he was rendered unemployed because of fire incident and the bank was insisting upon for early payment of loan. It is alleged that immediately after signing the discharge voucher, the complainant sent protest letter to the insurance company stating that the amount of Rs.35 lakh being offered by the insurance company was meagre and the said amount was not acceptable to him. It is further alleged that this enraged the functionaries of the insurance company who further reduced the amount of claim to Rs.31,53,008/- and asked him to submit discharge voucher, which he did not submit and sent another protest letter but the insurance company remitted the amount of Rs.31,53,008/- to the bank, which remitted the said amount against the complainant’s liability in the cash credit facility account.

4. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a complaint seeking direction to the insurance company to pay the balance amount of loss sustained by him along with compensation.

5. The insurance company contested the complaint by filing reply stating that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of