SURRINDER SINGH Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the opposite party before the State Commission where respondent, Mr. Ashok Sekhon, had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant who is a leading manufacturer of matchstick items, under a scheme floated jointly with NABARD, entered into an agreement with the respondents/complainant through which 1800 ETPs (Entire Transplants of Poplars) were to be given to the complainant for growing them into trees, of up to given dimension, and for which an agreement was entered between the parties. It was the case of the complainant that the appellant was to obtain the insurance cover for the plants, which he did not cover and since the plants got damaged in 1990 due to very, too very heavy rainfall and strong winds, causing damage to 1438 poplar trees, the appellant was liable to pay the damage, as according to the complainant, it was the appellant who should have obtained the insurance cover and since the appellant failed to do so, hence, the appellant is liable to pay the damage. The matter was taken up by the respondents/complainant with the appellant and when the matter was not getting settled a complaint was filed before the State Commission who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,94,103 along with interest at the rate of 15% on Rs. 1,50,052 from 5. 9. 1995 and on Rs. 1,05,061from 21. 11. 1995 up to the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.

(2.) WE heard the learned Counsel for both the parties, primarily, on the preliminary objection taken by the appellant, before the State Commission as well also before us that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) (i) as the appellant had purchased the goods for commercial purposes for earning profit.

(3.) WE have gone through the record carefully. The basic facts are not in dispute. Hence, at this stage we are not reproducing them.