Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 29.08.2005 passed in Consumer Complaint No.570/2002, Shri Rangrao Bhau Patil  V/s. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolhapur & Anr., by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Kolhapur (‘the Forum’ in short).

(2)                It is the case of the Appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’) that insured vehicle viz.tempo trax bearing registration No.MH-07-A-8799 was stolen on 09.09.1999 on the midnight between 9^th and 10^th September, 1999.  Report of the theft was given to Laxmipuri Police Station, Kolhapur on 14.09.1999.  However, since culprit was not found and the insurance claim was made.  It was not settled for considerable length of time and hence, a consumer complaint was filed, which was settled in favour of the Complainant (as per impugned order).

(3)                It may be noted that on 10.09.1999 there was a transfer of ownership of the vehicle by original owner Nandkumar Kadam to the Complainant Rangrao Bhau Patil.  Therefore, the Forum rightly inferred that at the first instance while taking the vehicle policy in his own name in respect of the vehicle, the Complainant concealed the fact of earlier insurance, which was valid and effective at that time, in favour of original Owner Nandkumar Kadam and at the second instance, when he got the ownership of the vehicle on 10.09.1999, it is revealed that he got the vehicle insured later on but before giving the report on 14^th September, 1999, effective from 9^th September, and thereafter alleged that the theft had taken place on the midnight falling between 9/10^th September, 1999.  This being breach of utmost good faith, we find no reason to take different view than what has been taken by the Forum and therefore, ultimate dismissal of the complaint cannot be faulted with.

(4)                Apart from that, in the instant case, the complaint as well as this appeal is filed against the Officials of the Insurance Company who are a separate, distinct and independent juristic person than the institution i.e. Insurance Company itself within the meaning of Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  These Officials are not the service providers.  Service Provider, viz. Insurance Company, is not the party.

(5)                For the reasons stated above, we find the appeal is devoid of any substance and holding accordingly, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

    (i)            Appeal is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly.

  (ii)            In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced on 22^nd March, 2012.