ORDER

1.   This appeal has been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 27.09.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 52 of 2012.

2.   The instant First Appeal has been filed with reported delay of 300 days.

However, in the interest of justice, inter alia having regard to the reasons contained in the applications for condonation of delay and in order to decide the matters on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

3.   The complaint relates to the repudiation of the insurance claim. The policy was valid at the point when the occurrence took place. Aggrieved by the same, a complaint was filed by the complainant co. in the State Commission but the same has been dismissed as not maintainable for the reason that in the opinion of the fora below the complainant co. being a commercial entity involved in doing business is not a ‘consumer’. The relevant extract of the impugned Order dated 27.09.2018 of the State Commission may be quoted herein below:

7.    Point No.1:- It is contended by the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has filed the complaint for an order directing the first opposite party to settle his claim of Rs 57,10,000/- as per the terms of the policy or the second opposite party to make good loss sustained by him due to the flood. The complainant is “Neyyar Aqua Products    “ a partnership firm represented by its managing partner K.S.Shaiju. In the complaint, it is stated that the complainant is conducting the business of bottling and filling drinking water under the name “Pearl dew Neyyar Aqua” Neyyattinkara on the western bank of a streamlet and adjacent to the NH 47 on its northern side for the livelihood of the family. So the business is being conducted by a partnership firm. Ext.A8 the copy of the partnership deed will show that Rajeena, the wife of complainant is the managing partner of the firm and complainant also partner. On going through the definitions of various terms mentioned in section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, it can be seen that a person having the status of consumer can file a complaint under the Act and the expression “person” includes a firm whether registered or not. So a complaint can be filed by the firm, as a consumer. The expression “consumer” is defined under section
(2)(d) of the Act. In clauses (I) & (II) of that definition it is stated that the person mentioned in that section does not include a person who obtains good for resale or for any commercial purpose or avails service for any commercial purpose. Admittedly, the complainant firm is conducting business, bottling and selling drinking water and they availed service of insurance company for commercial purpose. In explanation to section 2(d) of the Act it is stated that ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods brought and used by him and service availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant is conducting business for the livelihood of the family. In Lekshmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industrial Institute (1995 AIR 1428) the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the definition of expression ‘consumer’ in section 2(d) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act and various expressions employed in that section and in the explanation to that section such as “commercial purpose”, ‘exclusively for the purpose of self employment’ etc held that what is a commercial purpose is a question of fact to be decided on the facts each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which goods bought are put to. Several words employed in the explanation “uses them by himself, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood and by means of self emplo