S.V.U.L. Projects Limited Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another - Court Judgment

Lokeshwar Prasad, President:

1. M/s. S.V.U.L. Projects Limited, a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short ‘the complainant company) has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act) averring therein that the complainant company is engaged in the business of off-shore and on-shore drilling workover job for various public sector oil companies on contract. It is stated that the complainant company took an insurance policy from O.P. No.1, insuring with it an electrically operated Workover Rig, being Rig No. Shiv-7, Wilson-65, SL No. 10514 (100 ton capacity) against physical damages and consequential loss, i.e. loss of hire damage with all risk covered, being Marine Hull Policy No. 22/323202/00101 valid from 16.6.1999 to 15.6.2000 for a total sum of Rs. 4,72,50,000/- including LOH of 90 days. It is stated that the complainant company deployed the said Rig for workover operation at Shiv Sagar, Assam, for Oil and Natural Gas Corporation for which the complainant company had entered into a contract with the above said Corporation. It is stated that on 11.6.2000 when the Rig was running at Lakwa well No. 453 suddenly the draw work mounting bolts were broken, resulting in separation and breakage of draw work rim and damages to other components of the draw work Rig due to downhole problems. It is stated that due to the above incident the Rig stopped working and remained non-functional for 10 days. It is stated that the complainant company immediately informed about the loss to respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 16.6.2000 and respondent No. 1 appointed one Shri Ramesh Borah as Surveryor to survey and assess the loss. It is stated that the complainant company submitted details of the claim along with necessary documents to the Surveryor with copy to the insurance company vide letter dated 14.11.2000, raising a claim of Rs. 26,76,725/- . It is stated that the Surveyor submitted his report assessing the loss at Rs. 21,76,556/- on physical damage and Rs. 10,47,500/- for the loss of hire. It is stated that despite the above facts, the liability of the respondent was assessed by the Surveyor to the extent of Rs. 14,97,386/-. It is stated that on knowing the above fact the complainant company protested and submitted vide letter dated 13.9.2002 that the complainant company was entitled to Rs. 22,87,556/- in terms of the policy issued by the respondents. The grievance of the complainant company in the complaint, filed by it, in brief, is that the claim of the complainant company under the policy is not being settled by the respondents. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the complainant company has prayed that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to pay to the complainant company a sum of Rs. 22,87,556/- together with interest @ 15% per annum from 11.6.2000 till payment. The complainant company has also claimed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony, business loss, loss of goodwill, etc.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant at length on the question of admission of the present complaint and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record it is not in dispute that the complainant company has availed of the ‘services of the respondents for commercial purpose. The Act stands amended as a result of Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 which has come into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003. As a result of the amendments, effected in the Act, which have come into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003, in Clause (ii)(d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act which defines the term ‘consumer the following words have been added—

“but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.”

3. The term ‘commercial purpose occurring in the above said sub-clause, has been further defined in explanation added to Clause (d) Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act as under :

“Explanation—For the purposes of this clause, ‘commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.”

4. On a bare perusal of the definition of the term ‘consumer as contained in Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Act as amended by the Amending Act of 2002 it is apparent that one who avails of services for any commercial purpose is not a ‘consumer and as such a complaint filed by such a consumer is not maintainble before a redressal agency established under the Act. The learned Counsel for the complainant, during the course of arguments, has made a vain attempt by saying that as the cause of action for the complainant company had arisen much before the amendment of the Act, the present complaint, filed by the complainant, would be maintainable before a redressal agency established under the Act. In our opinion, the above contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the complainant is devoid of substance because by operation of law the jurisdiction of a redressal agency established under the Act in such like matters stands ousted w.e.f. 15.3.2003, i.e. the date on which the amendments effected by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 came into force.

5. In view of the position explained above, the present complaint, filed by the complainant, is dismissed in limine being not maintainable before a redressal agency established under the Act.

6. However, before concluding we would like to make it clear that the dismissal of the present complaint by this Commission will not operate to the prejudice of the complainant company in the matter of pursuing any other remedy that may be available to it under any other law for the time being in force.

The above mentioned complaint, filed by the complainant company, stands disposed of in above terms.

Complaint disposed of.