The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal construction of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in favor of consumers, the enforceability of a decree passed by the Civil Court through the Consumer Protection Forum, and the relevance of insurable interest in an insurance policy.

JUDGMENT :

N.KOTISWAR SINGH, J

1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 09.06.2003 passed by the J&K State Consumers Protection Commission, Srinagar in Appeal No. 51 of 2002, where the complaint filed by the petitioner before Divisional Consumers Protection Forum, Srinagar which granted relief to the petitioner was set aside as not maintainable.

2. The facts in brief as may be relevant for the purpose of this petition may be stated as follows:

3. The insured Truck of the petitioner purchased from another person, was totally damaged while travelling on the National Highway on 01.05.1984.

The Insurance Company was, accordingly, informed about the loss of the vehicle and, as no action was taken by the Company, the petitioner served a notice and thereafter, file a suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Srinagar which was decreed in his favour with the direction to the Insurance Company to make assessment of the loss of the insured vehicle. The Insurance Company preferred an appeal against the decree of the Court of Judge, Small Causes, which was dismissed in the year 1996.

4. The petitioner thereafter, approached the Divisional Consumers Protection Forum, Srinagar ( for short ‘Consumer Protection Forum’) seeking to enforce his claim based on the decree by filing the Case No. 79 of 2000 on 29.03.2000 which was resisted by the Company on the ground that the claim was time barred.

5. The Consumers Protection Forum, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M. K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787: (1994) 1 SCC 243 in which it was held that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have to be construed liberally in favour of the consumers to achieve the beneficial purpose for which the statute had been enacted, held that it was not time barred. In Para 2 Supreme Court held as under:-

“2. …………The provisions of the Act thus have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the court while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to the attempted objective of the enactment.”

6. The Consumers Protection Forum also took into consideration the submission that the valley was afflicted by militancy and because of the disturbed condition prevailing at the relevant time even if there was certain delay, the delay was not fatal.

7. The Consumers Protection Forum also noted that the Company did not deny the fact that the accident had occurred which led to the total damage of the vehicle. The Consumers Protection Forum also noted that the Company had failed to conduct the assessment of the damage as directed by the Court of Small Causes in terms of the decree, but the Company merely resisted the claim of the claimant on the ground of delay.

8. The other ground on which the Company opposed the claim was that though the vehicle was transferred by the original owner to the claimant/petitioner, since the insurance policy was still in the name of the original owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount to the petitioner. This aspect was dealt with by the Consumers Protection Forum by holding that Insurance Company had issued a Circular under No. CHRO:MOT:JR:A:16:97 dated 19.11.1997 and the claimant can take the benefit of insurance taken by the original owner.

9. When the matter was pending before it, the Consumers Protection Forum vide its order dated 26.11.2001 directed the Insurance Company to assess the loss and submit the Final Survey Report, which was duly submitted by the Company. The Consumers Protection Forum thereafter considering that the vehicle had fallen in a deep gorge and could not be retrieved did not allow any deduction on account of damage value. The Consumers Protection