A company can be a 'consumer' under the Act when availing insurance policies for asset protection, as contracts of indemnity against risk generally lack the requisite close and direct nexus with profit-generating activities to be deemed a 'commercial purpose'.

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. Kabir Singh Sudan, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Chandna, counsel for the Respondent no. 1.

Appeared through VC.

None for the Respondent No. 2.

Mr. Aman Prasad, counsel for the Respondent no. 3. Appeared

through VC.

Respondent no 4. (Mr. R.M. Kaul) in person.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,

(PRESIDENT)

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“…In March/April 2016 complainant negotiated with OP5 for purchase of Aluminum Ingots from China and placed order for supply of 50 mts of Aluminum Ingots for a sum of USD 68,000/-. Goods were properly checked, sealed and thereafter certificate of inspection and quality was issued On 16.04.2016 OP2 issued in house Bill of Lading bearing no. OMCH000780 and on the same date OP3 issued a master Bill of Lading bearing No. XGID0415774 reflecting the original seal for Aluminum Ingots scrap. OP5 raised commercial invoice no. JRL0235/2016 dated 01.04.2016 for 50 mts for the supply of the goods i.e. Aluminum Ingots. Complainant got insured the imported consignment Aluminum Ingots for the sum insured of Rs. 49,47,369/- from OP1 vide insurance policy bearing no. 131201/21/2017/1. OP1 issued the policy after being satisfied about bonafides of import. Complainant paid custom duty of Rs. 14,30,979/-. On arrival of the imported consignment at the destination port. Complainant was shocked to find that 50 mts of Aluminum Ingots scraps were missing and instead the container was found to have cement bricks, wooden pallets and that the original seal had been replaced with false and fabricated seal during transit. Accordingly on 11.07.2016. complainant filed claim of Rs. 50,16,394/- with OP1. Surprisingly, OP1 did not supply the Surveyor reports to the complainant and claimed that surveyor had closed the case under head "no claim" till date. Complainant has neither received surveyor report nor OP1 has accepted or rejected claim of the complainant. Complainant has prayed to this Commission to-

a) "To award an amount of Rs. 49,47,369/- (being the sum insured) along with interest @ 18% p.a., starting from the date of submission of claim till actual payment; being payable by the OP1

b) To direct the Respondent No. 4 to refund back the amount being charged as the Surveyor fees along with interest @ 18% p.a., starting from the date of the payment till actual payment;

c) To direct the Respondent no. 1 and Respondent no. 4 to jointly pay an amount of INR 10,00,000/-(Ten Lakhs only) on account of mental agony, harassment and unfair practice of the Respondent no. 1 and Respondent no. 4;

d) To direct the Respondent no. 2 and 3 to provide the requisite information and documentation, as and what may be required by the Respondent no. 1, directly to the Respondent no. 1;"

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 14.03.2022, whereby it held as under:

“3. We have pursued the material available on record. We have also heard Adv. Aditya Trehan, Counsel for the complainant, Adv. Hardik Vashisht, Counsel for the OP3 and Adv. Bhupesh Kumar Chandna, Counsel for the OP1.

4. Ld. Counsel for the OP submitted that the complainant is a huge commercial organization as is evident from its profile in the instant case and having availed services of the OP for commercial purpose complainant is not a consumer under the Act.

5. Con