The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently ruled that an entity engaged in business activities with the primary objective of making a profit does not fall under the definition of a ‘consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Even if such a commercial entity transfers its right to recover a claim to a third party, the new entity cannot be recognized as a consumer under the Act.
Understanding the Issue: Commercial Purpose vs. Consumer Rights
Case Title: East India Transport Agency vs. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Another
Case No.: First Appeal No. 232 of 2019
Decision Date: May 1, 2024
The central question in this case was whether an entity engaged in commercial transactions can claim consumer rights when availing services. Additionally, the court examined whether an insurance company, after receiving subrogation rights, could file a consumer complaint under the Act.
What is Subrogation?
Subrogation refers to the substitution of one party for another concerning financial claims, debts, or insurance rights. In simpler terms, when an insurance company pays compensation to an insured party, it may gain the legal right to recover the amount from the party responsible for the loss. This allows the insurer to step into the shoes of the insured and pursue recovery of the claim.
Case Background
Dhariwal Industries Ltd. (“Dhariwal”) entered into a contract with East India Transport Agency (“Transport Agency”) for the transportation of 350 cartons of ‘Gutkha’ to Kolhapur. The consignment was successfully dispatched, but it never reached the intended recipient. It was later discovered that the consignment had been stolen while in the custody of the Transport Agency.
When Dhariwal sought compensation from the Transport Agency, the latter refused to reimburse the loss. However, since the consignment was insured under a Marine Insurance Policy with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company (“Insurance Company”), Dhariwal filed a claim with the insurer. The Insurance Company processed the claim and paid Dhariwal an amount of Rs. 28,72,142/- as settlement.
Following this settlement, Dhariwal signed a letter of subrogation and a special power of attorney in favor of the Insurance Company. This meant that the Insurance Company now had the right to recover the loss amount from the Transport Agency. The Insurance Company, along with Dhariwal, then filed a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (“State Commission”).
Legal Proceedings and Appeal
The Transport Agency challenged the complaint, arguing that Dhariwal had engaged in a commercial transaction and was not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, it contended that neither Dhariwal nor the Insurance Company had the legal standing to file a consumer complaint.
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the State Commission, the Transport Agency appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which examined two key questions:
- Whether Dhariwal, in dealing with the Transport Agency for business purposes, could be classified as a consumer.
- Whether the Insurance Company, after receiving subrogation rights, could file a consumer complaint against the Transport Agency.
Observations and Ruling of the National Commission
After careful consideration, the NCDRC ruled as follows:
- Commercial Nature of Transactions: The Commission noted that Dhariwal had engaged with the Transport Agency in a purely commercial capacity. Under Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a ‘consumer’ is someone who purchases goods or services for personal use and not for commercial gain. Since Dhariwal was using the transport services for business purposes, it could not be classified as a consumer.
- Effect of Subrogation on Consumer Status: The Commission further ruled that when Dhariwal transferred its right of recovery to the Insurance Company through subrogation, the Insurance Company inherited Dhariwal’s legal status. This meant that if Dhariwal was not considered a consumer under the Act, then the Insurance Company, acting as the subrogee, also could not claim consumer rights.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling
- A business entity that avails services for commercial gain does not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
- If a commercial entity subrogates its right to recover a claim to an insurer, the insurer inherits the same status and does not become a consumer.
- The Consumer Protection Act is intended to safeguard individual consumers and entities that purchase goods or services for personal use, not for commercial transactions.
- Even if a commercial entity suffers a loss and seeks compensation through an insurance policy, its status remains unchanged in legal disputes related to consumer rights.
Implications of the Judgment
This decision reinforces the principle that consumer protection laws are not designed to resolve disputes arising from purely commercial dealings. Businesses must seek redress through contractual or civil remedies rather than relying on consumer forums. Insurance companies, after stepping into the shoes of an insured business through subrogation, cannot claim consumer status to file complaints in consumer courts.
For commercial entities, this judgment highlights the importance of carefully negotiating contracts and ensuring adequate insurance coverage. Businesses must understand that consumer protection laws will not apply to disputes arising from transactions that are undertaken for profit-making purposes.
.