(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) – Consumer – Insurance claim – Repudiation of claim –Insured-appellant has taken a pertinent plea in the instant civil appeal that the copies of the surveyor’s report and the investigators’ report were not provided timely and thus, the insured-appellant did not get proper opportunity to rebut the same – This pertinent plea taken by the insured-appellant in the memo of appeal has not been specifically refuted and only a formal denial was offered in the counter-affidavit filed by the insurer respondent – Held that ends of justice require that the insured-appellant should have been provided proper opportunity to file its rebuttal/objections to the affidavit/reports submitted by the insurer-respondent before the National Commission and consequently, the complaint should be reconsidered on merits after providing such opportunity to the appellant – Directed that the appellant shall be permitted to file its rebuttal/rejoinder affidavit before the National Commission limited to the contents of the reports referred to supra – Thereafter, the matter shall be reheard and decided on merits afresh – Impugned order liable to be set aside – The matter is remitted to the National Commission for considering and deciding the complaint afresh in light of the above directions. (Para 17 to 20)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(m) – Insurance claim by company – Term ‘person’ – Contention that the word ‘company’ is not covered within the definition of ‘person’ under Section 2(1)(m) of the Act, 1986 – Held that the definition of ‘person’ as provided in the Act of 1986 is inclusive and not exhaustive – Consumer Protection Act being a beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation has to be given to the statute – The very fact that in the Act of 2019, a body corporate has been brought within the definition of ‘person’, by itself indicates that the legislature realized the incongruity in the unamended provision and has rectified the anomaly by including the word ‘company’ in the definition of ‘person’ – First preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent regarding ‘company’ not being covered by the definition of ‘person’ under Act of 1986 has no legs to stand and deserves to be rejected. (Para 15)
(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) – Commercial purpose – Insurance claim by company – Consumer – Contention that the insured-appellant having taken the policy for commercial purposes cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the National Commission because the transactions leading to filing of the complaint cannot be termed to be lack of service/deficiency in service – Insurance policy in the present case was taken under the title ‘Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy(Material Damage)’ and was covering the risk of these elements only and nothing else – The claim was also filed for indemnifying the insured-appellant for the damage caused in a fire accident at the insured premises – Held that the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent are unsustainable. (Para 16)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 186 SC
[2024 INSC 234]
M/S. Kozyflex Mattresses Private Limited Vs. Sbi General Insurance Company Limited And Anr.
Civil Appeal No(S). 7966 of 2022-Decided on 20-03-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-186-SC.pdf
