KANWAR BHANU PRATAP vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ORS. (Complaint No.627 of 2010) (Date of Order : 03.05.2011 DISSENTING ORDER PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER 1] I have had the privilege to peruse the judgment written by the Ld. President Sh.Lakshman Sharma, and also signed in agreement by the Ld.Member Sh.Ashok Raj Bhandari. The complaint has been allowed and the OPs have been directed to pay the value lf the car along with compensation. 2] Interestingly, as I went through the array of parties, I was surprised to read/note that the complainant has filed the case/complaint against Branch Manager (OP-1), Manager (OP-2), Chief Regional Manager (OP-3), Dy. Manager (OP-5) of United India Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh and Branch Manager (OP-4) of United India Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi. Hence, it is clear that the complaint has been field by the complainant against the Officers of the Insurance Company and not against the Insurance Company itself. The actual insurer is the United India Insurance Company and not the officers of the Company. 3] The Hon’ble National Commission in case Director General of Police, Chandigarh & Anr. Vs. Jeevan Lata, II(2006) CPJ 119 (NC) has held that the agents of insurer are not liable to the insured. The relevant portion is quoted below :- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Insurance – Agents of insurer – Liability of insurer – Appellants, agents of insurance company – Sole liability of company to pay entire awarded amount – Order of State Commission, holding appellants and insurer to pay amount and costs, modified to such extent.” The above cited appeal had been filed against the orders of Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission, U.T., wherein the complaint had been allowed and the Officers along with the insurance company had been made liable to compensate the claimant. The Hon’ble National Commission in the aforementioned case held :- “…..It was, thus, the liability of Insurance Company to pay the entire awarded amount to the respondent. Order of State Commission, therefore, deserves to be modified to that extent.” The order of the Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission, U.T. was accordingly modified to the extent that only the Insurance Company was liable to pay the awarded amount to the complainant and not the individuals. The relevant portion is reproduced below:- “4. Accordingly, while allowing appeal, aforesaid order dated 25.3.1996 is modified to the extent that it is Oriental Insurance Company and not appellant No.1 who is liable to pay the awarded amount to the respondent. No order as to cost.” 4] In the present complainant, the complainant has not made the United India Insurance Company as a Party. Only the Officers of the United India Insurance Company have been made parties to pay the claim of the claimant. 5] Hence, without going into the merits of the complaint and whether it should be allowed, I am writing this dissenting order by relying on the aforementioned judgment of Hon’ble National Commission. I do not deem it appropriate that the complaint be allowed against the Officers of the Insurance Company and the Officers be made liable to pay the claim amount, if found allowable. This amount should actually be paid by the Insurance Company only. 6] In view of above position, I differ from the opinion of Ld.President and Ld.Member in allowing the complaint. In my view, the complaint deserves dismissal being not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary/correct parties. The complaint is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of cost. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 03.05.2011 (MADHU MUTNEJA)MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
