- (1.) THE opposite party in C.O.P. No. 47/2000 on the file of the District Forum, Tuticorin, is the appellant herein. The respondent herein filed the complaint against the opposite party for a direction to pay Rs. 8,500 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum towards repair charges for the air conditioner, to pay Rs. 25,000 towards damages and Rs. 2,000 towards costs alleging as follows:
(2.) HE had an Amtrex Split Air Conditioner in his hair cutting centre. He had insured the AC machine and other machinery with the opposite party from 1993 onwards. The policy was renewed year after year upto 1998. On 22.11.1999 he insured the very same articles with the appellant/opposite party and paid a sum of Rs. 788. The air conditioner went out of order. The complainant sent a claim petition on 14.2.2000 to which the appellant sent a reply on 24.2.2000 repudiating the claim and in such circumstances the complaint came to be filed.
(3.) THE opposite party resisted the claim contending inter alia as follows: The complainant was not a consumer. He was using the air conditioner for his commercial purpose. The disputed policy was not a fire insurance policy. It was a machinery insurance policy different from the fire insurance policy. Only after particulars were given by the insured, the policy would be issued to the insured. Though the premium for the air conditioner was collected based on the proposal with utmost good faith, the complainant had not furnished the serial number of the air conditioner and the policy was, therefore, not issued. As the proposal of the complainant was not accepted, there was no concluded contract between the parties. The claim was suitably repudiated. The appellant/opposite party, however, arranged the government licensed Surveyor to inspect and assess the loss to the air conditioner. He had inspected the air conditioner on 16.3.2000 and submitted his report. His report revealed that the serial number of the air conditioner was erased. Serial number could not be traced. The cause of failure of the air conditioner fell under Exclusion No. 6 under the machinery policy. There was no deficiency in service. On the above pleadings, the following points were framed for consideration by the lower Forum : (1) whether the complainant was a consumer? and (2) whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?;