P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Kozyflex Mattresses Private Limited Vs. SBI General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 234) - (Supreme Court) (20 Mar 2024)

A Company can file complaint under Consumer Protection Act

MANU/SC/0226/2024

Consumer

Present appeal under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been preferred by the Appellant for assailing final order rendered by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('National Commission'), rejecting the Consumer Case filed by Kozyflex Mattresses Private Limited('insured-Appellant') praying for a direction to the SBI General Insurance Company('insurer-Respondent') to indemnify it for the loss caused by fire in the insured premises being the manufacturing unit of the insured-Appellant company.

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'. Hence, the first preliminary objection raised by learned Counsel for 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.

The second preliminary objection raised by the Respondent was regarding claim being filed for a commercial purpose. The 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. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that, both the preliminary objections raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent are unsustainable.

The 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.

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. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the National Commission. Appeal disposed off.

Tags : COMPLAINT   FILING OF   JURISDICTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved