BIRLA VXL LTD Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common issue has been raised in these complaints by Mr. Nandwani, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company to contend that after the amendment to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which amendment came into force on 15th March, 2003, this Commission ceases to have jurisdiction to try the complaints where the complainant is not a consumer. The issue arises in the definition of 'consumer' as contained in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act. After the amendment the following words added to the definition of consumer : "but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose." Commercial purpose has also been defined in the Explanation added to the definition which reads as under :

(2.) In all the aforesaid matters if we examine the definition of consumer, Mr. Nandwani is right that the complainants do not satisfy the definition of consumer. But these complaints are pending for the last many years. That according to Mr. Nandwani is not material inasmuch as if the Commission ceases to have jurisdiction to try a complaint, complaints have to be dismissed with liberty to the parties to go to Civil Court or to any other Forum. Earlier in the case of Smt. Babita Aggarwal & Ors. v. Dr. S.K. Goel, Original Petition No. 379/2002, decided on 26.3.2003 we held that the Amendment Act is not retrospective. In that case question raised was that since pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission is over and above Rs. 1.00 crore the complaints where claim is less than that amount and were pending before the coming into force the Amending Act this Commission will ceases to have jurisdiction. We rejected this contention and held that the Amendment Act was prospective in nature.

(3.) The question now raised is to the inherent jurisdiction of the National Commission. We issued notice in the matter and requested Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate to assist us on the issue so raised. We have heard Mr. Nandwani, Mr. Kishore Rawat, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Mr. Prateek Jalan and Mr. Suri. While Mr. Nandwani and Mr. Kishore Rawat supported the stand of the Insurance Company, other learned Counsel opposed the same. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that as regards the definition of 'consumer' which came into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003 the Amending Act is nevertheless prospective in nature.