RAM SAROOP AGNIHOTRI vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.11.2008 passed by State Commission in First Appeal No. 567 of 2005- Dr. Ram Sarup Agnihotri Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; by which appeal was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/ petitioner got his ultrasound machine insured from opposite party / respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and the policy was valid till 2.5.1998. On 28.1.1998, defect occurred in the machine and intimation was given to the opposite party. Opposite party appointed surveyor who submitted false report without inspecting the machine against which criminal proceedings were initiated against the surveyor and other persons but order of summoning accused person was set aside by revisional court. Complainant repeatedly requested opposite party to settle the claim but claim was not settled. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was not maintainable on account of concealment and suppression of material facts, estoppel and complainant was not consumer . It was further submitted that surveyor was deputed and repairer M/s. Cardio Trace Electronics had issued a certificate dated 26.2.1998 certifying that the probe of ultrasound machine was working but crystal inside the probe were not working which was beyond repair. It was further submitted that loss reported in the machinery was not covered under the policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant was also dismissed by State Commission against which this revision petition has bene filed.

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that purpose of obtaining insurance was not commercial even then Learned District Forum and Learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint on this count, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to State Commission to decide appeal on merits. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petition be dismissed.

Admittedly, complainant got his machine insured from opposite party and obtaining services of Insurance Co. for getting articles insured does not fall within the purview of commercial purposes . Learned District Forum and State Commission have committed error in holding that Insurance was obtained for commercial purpose . Machinery may be run for commercial purpose but for obtaining service of Insurance Co. for getting articles insured does not fall within the purview of commercial purpose and complaint is maintainable.

Merely because complainant invoked jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate by filing complaint against officers and surveyor of opposite party, complaint cannot be dismissed. Complaint has to be decided on merits. Learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and Learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal on these counts and revision petition is to be allowed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 7.11.2008 passed by Learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 567 of 2005- Dr. Ram Sarup Agnihotri Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; is set aside and matter is remanded back to Learned State Commission to decide appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 25.2.2016.