The court affirmed that contracting insurance does not exempt individuals engaged in commercial activities from consumer protection rights.

1. The present Appeal is filed against the order dated 17.7.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana (in short ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 01/2013 whereby the Consumer Complaint filed by the Complainant / Appellant was dismissed.

2. The Appeal has been filed with a delay of 1 day. The Appellant has not filed an application for condonation of delay. However, in the interest of justice, delay is condoned.

3. Case of the Complainant / Appellant is that they obtained Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy No. FMD0006080000100 from the Opposite Party / Respondent Insurance Company, valid from 26.4.2010 to 25.4.2011, for sum insured Rs. 1,25,00,000. The Complainant firm was situated at 106, Vikas Nagar, Gali No. 2, Phoosgarh Road, near Sector - 6, Karnal. During the validity of the Policy, the firm shifted to the new address at 172 - B, Sector - 3, HSIDC, Industrial Area, Karnal. The Opposite Party was duly informed by the Complainant about the change of address. The Insurance company made an endorsement on the Policy to that effect. In the intervening night of 24/25.6.2010, the roof of the godown collapsed due to thunder storm and heavy rain and rain water entered into the godown causing damage to the medicines stocked in the godown. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party about the incident and lodged a claim of Rs. 60,06,974.13. The Opposite Party deputed M/s Protocol Surveyors & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. for Survey and assessment of loss, who assessed the loss at Rs. 50,17,580.53. The Surveyor observed that on the intervening night of 24/25.6.2010 wind speed was 8 km per hour in Karnal, which could not be termed as storm and could not lead to collapse of the roof of the building. The loss suffered by the Complainant was not covered under the Policy. On the basis of the Survey Report, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant, vide letter dated 10.9.2011. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer:
“(i) Direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to disburse the amount of Rs.56,93,886.78 towards the loss along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the d ate of loss till the date of actual disbursement.
(ii) Grant exemplary damages of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of deficient services and unfair trade practices.
(iii) Grant litigation expenses to the extent of Rs. 88,000.
(iv) Pass any other orders / directions deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party by filing the written statement primarily on the ground that the issue involved complicated questions of facts and law, which required voluminous evidence. It was also stated that as the Complainant is doing the business of pharmaceuticals it was not a “Consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act , 1986.

5. On merit, it was stated that after verifying the documents supplied by the Complainant, the Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 50,17,580. The claim of the Complainant, however, was not covered under the Policy. It was also stated that as per report of the Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal, wind speed was 8 km per hour on 24.6.2010 and 8.9 km per hour on 25.6.2010, which could not be termed as storm.

6. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, the State Commission, vide impugned order dated 17.7.2013, dismissed the Complaint with the followingm observation:
“In view of the above, the complainant has miserably failed to establish on the record that the roof of godown had fal