TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the SBI General Insurance Company(hereinafter being referred to as the 'insurer-respondent') to indemnify it for the loss caused by fire in the insured premises being the manufacturing unit of the insured-appellant company situated at Sy. No. -41-25, village Poosapatirega, Mandal and District Vizianagaram. 2. Brief facts essential for adjudication of the present civil appeal are noted hereinbelow. 3. The insured-appellant herein being a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of coir foam mattresses, pillows, cushions and other coir by-products. The manufacturing unit of the insured-appellant is situated at Sy. No. -41-25, village Poosapatirega, Mandal and District Vizianagaram and was registered as a small scale industry with the District Industries Centre, Vizianagaram. The insured-appellant obtained a 'Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy(Material Damage)' No. 0000000000807725 (in short 'Policy') for the period commencing from 28th March, 2013 to 27th March, 2014 for a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores on the plant and machinery and a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- on stock from the insurer-respondent. By an end....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the State Bank of Hyderabad and the National Small Scale Industries Corporation Ltd. and that there had been no actual sale/purchase of such machinery and stock. 6. After examining all the documents submitted by the insuredappellant as well as the reports of the two investigators, the surveyor submitted a final survey report dated 11th February, 2014 observing that the claim was fraudulent and was based on fabricated documents and accordingly recommended for the repudiation of the claim. The Competent Authority of the insurer-respondent examined the entire material and repudiated the claim of the appellant by invoking Clause 8 of the General Terms and Conditions of Policy vide letter dated 3rd March, 2014. 7. The insured-appellant made a representation dated 11th January, 2015 to the Grievance Redressal Manager against the repudiation of its claim. However, such representation did not meet the desired result, upon which the insured-appellant filed Complaint No. 329 of 2015 before the National Commission which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30th June, 2015 with the liberty to file a fresh complaint. Thereafter, the subject complaint came to be filed on 4th August, 2015 alleg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de or used in support thereof or any fraudulent means or devices are used by the Insured or any one acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under the policy or if the loss or damage be occasioned by the wilful act, or with the connivance of the insured, all benefits under this policy shall be forfeited." 9. After referring to the said clause and relying upon the reply of the insurer-respondent and the reports of the investigators and the surveyor, the National Commission proceeded to accept the same and upheld the repudiation letter dated 3rd March, 2014, rejecting the complaint vide order dated 24th August, 2022 which is assailed in the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the insured-appellant submitted that the queries raised by the investigators and surveyor were duly replied by the insured-appellant and the same forms part of the record before the National Commission. Neither the preliminary report nor the final report was provided to the insured-appellant and were directly produced along with the reply affidavit filed by the insurer-respondent before the National Commission and hence, there was no opportunity for the insured-appellant to rebut the same. 11. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'person' under Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (2) 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. 15. We may at the outset record 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'. 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. 16. The second preliminary objection raised by the respondent was regarding claim being filed for a c....