AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
The complainant, who is appellant in FA/1663/2018 and respondent No.1 in FA/1468/2018 is the proprietor of Mahatron Enterprise and engaged in the business of the distribution of electronic goods. He claims to be running the said business for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. This is also the case of the complainant that he had taken a cash credit limit of Rs.70 lacs from the Bank of India, hypothecating his entire business stock with the said bank. The complainant had reserved a storage space admeasuring 326 sq. mtr. (more than 3500 sq. ft.) being godown No. NC4/4 with Central Warehousing Corporation, agreeing to pay Rs.52,014/- per month as the rent for the said storage space. The complainant had taken a Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy from National Insurance Company Ltd. for the period from 24.12.2012 to 23.12.2013. It is alleged that due to heavy rainfall on 29.6.2013 and 30.6.2013, there was waterlogging in the warehouse of the CWC, resulting in damage to the stock of the complainant. A claim submitted by the complainant with the insurer however, was repudiated by the insurer on the ground that the premises where the alleged damage to the goods took place was not covered under the insurance policy taken by the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint, impleading the insurer, the bank as well as the Central Warehousing Corporation as the opposite parties in the complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the ground on which the claim had been repudiated. The complaint was resisted by the bank on the ground that it was for the complainant to insure the hypothecated stock and there was no deficiency on its part in rendering services to the complainant.
The complaint was resisted by the CWC on several grounds, including that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
Vide impugned order dated 4.7.2018, the State Commission, while dismissing the complaint against the insurer, held CWC deficient in rendering services to the complainant and directed it to settle the claim of the complainant with 9% interest. The complaint against the bank was dismissed.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, CWC is before this Commission by way of FA/1468/2018.
Since the complainant is also not satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, he is also before this Commission by way of FA/1663/2018.
As far as the insurer is concerned, it is not in dispute that the insurance policy taken from the National Insurance Company Ltd. was in respect of premises No.85A, Netaji Colony, Kolkata, West Bengal. The said policy therefore, did not insure the goods which the complainant had stored in the warehouse of the CWC at CN 4/4, Bonhooghly, Kolkata. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the State Commission, dismissing the complaint against the insurer.
As far as the bank is concerned, no deficiency on the part of the bank in rendering services to the complainant has been proved. This is complainant's own case that the insurance policy from National Insurance Company was taken by him. Therefore, it was for him to include the stock kept in CWC warehouse, while taking the said insurance policy.
As far as Central Warehousing Corporation is concerned, it took a preliminary objection that the complainant was not a consumer, as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The godown from CWC was rented by the complainant with effect from 01.3.2013. Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, as amended with effect from 15.3.2003 by Act 62 of 2002 therefore applies to this case. Hence a person hiring or availing services for a commercial purpose will not be a consumer, unless he can show that the said services were hired or availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
The facts and circumstances of this case clearly show that the business in which the complainant was engaged was a large scale business. It is his own case that he had taken cash credit limit of Rs.70.00 lacs form the Bank of India. Such a huge limit will certainly not be required for a small scale business. The complainant besides, occupying shop No.85A, Netaji Colony, Kolkata also rented a warehouse admeasuring more than 3500 Sq. ft. Thus, a large warehouse was hired by the complainant from the CWC. A perusal of the report of the surveyor would show that there were as many as 212 refrigerators lying damaged in the said warehouse. The sheer number of refrigerators stored by the complainant in the warehouse of CWC is sufficient to prove the scale of the business in which he was engaged. The complainant claims to be distributor of a number of companies. The number of refrigerators stored by him in CWC warehouse coupled with the area of the said warehouse and the extent of the credit limit taken by him from Bank of India leave no doubt that he was engaged in a large scale business of distribution of electronic goods. Therefore it cannot be said that the godown from CWC was rented by him for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. A business of such a magnitude cannot be run and managed by a person alone or even with the help of few employees. Managing such a large business would require employment of several workers. A person engaged in such a fairly large business, in my opinion, cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
For the reasons stated hereinabove FA/1468/2018 filed by the Central Warehousing Corporation is allowed and FA/1663/2018 filed by the complainant is dismissed. The impugned order is set aside and the consumer complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
It is however, made clear that the dismissal of the consumer complaint shall not come in the way of the complainant, availing such remedy, other than a consumer complaint, as may be open to him, in law. In the event of the complainant approaching a Civil Court for the redressal of his grievances, it shall also be open to him to seek benefit of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act.