Per Mr P N Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal is filed by the original opposite party No.1 – Insurance Co against the judgment and award passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in CC No.274/01 on 30.08.2004  

1.      The complaint was filed by Mr Agrawal, who was proprietor of Agrawal Lease Corporation against the o.p.No.1 – United India. Insurance Co Ltd and o.p.No.2 – Mr D Revatkar.  He alleged that he had given advance to o.p.No.2 – Revatkar for purchase of Tata Sumo. Under the Hire Purchase scheme the vehicle was purchased by o.p. No.2 and it was registered bearing No.MH-31-H-8321.  O.p. No.2 was the registered owner of the vehicle.  The vehicle was having insurance cover issued by the o.p.No.1 / appellant herein. The insurance cover was taken by o.p.No.2 – Mr Revatkar.  Premium was also paid by him.  It so happened that the vehicle was stolen by somebody and thereafter the insurance claim was lodged by o.p.No.2.  However, the same claim was repudiated by the Insurance Co on the ground that the vehicle was used for carrying passengers, which was the breach of insurance policy conditions. The letter was issued on 25.04.2001 and it was addressed to Mr Revatkar.  After receipt of repudiation letter, complainant Agrawal filed the consumer complaint, which was contested by insurance company. 

2.      It is specifically pleaded in the written version filed by the insurance co. that complainant was carrying business of hire purchase scheme under which he gives finance to needy person.  The o.p.No.2 had taken the finance from the complainant for purchasing the vehicle – Tata Sumo which was insured with it.  It is further pleaded that the said person had taken insurance from it.  The premium was also paid by o.p.No.2 Mr Revatkar and the policy was issued in the name of o.p.No.2 and vehicle was also registered in the name of o.p.No.2.  Therefore, when insurance claim was lodged by o.p.No.2 they had repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that the o.p.No.2 was using the vehicle for carrying the passengers for hire and reward basis which was the contrary to the terms & conditions applicable to the policy in question.

3.      After repudiation letter, the complaint came to be filed not by o.p.No.2 but by the complainant – Agrawal – proprietor of Finance institute. Insurance Co specifically pleaded that the complainant had no locus standi to file the consumer complaint since insurance was taken by o.p.No.2 and not by complainant.  Vehicle was belonging to o.p.No.2 and not of complainant.  So he would not have any insurable interest. However, the Forum below allowed the complaint after perusal of documents and affidavits placed on record and directed the insurance co to settle the claim of the complainant for `3.50 lacs alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.. Aggrieved by this award original o.p.No.1 filed this appeal.

4.      We have heard the submission of Adv. Mr B Lahiri for appellant – Insurance Co.  None for the respondent though Adv. Mr B.G. Kulkarni had filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.1 original complainant.  He had also filed reply to appeal memo.

5.      We are finding that the award passed by the Forum is per se bad in law and cannot be sustainable in law.  What is pertinent to note is the fact that the vehicle was purchased by o.p.No.2 Mr Revatkar, who had taken finance from original complainant – Mr Agrawal but that does not mean that the original complainant had right over the vehicle, because Mr Revatkar was the registered owner of the said vehicle.  He had taken policy in his own name to insure the vehicle, by paying its premium.  So insurance claim was lodged by Mr Revatkar, which was repudiated by the insurance co / appellant by sending a letter to Mr Revatkar.  So the consumer complaint should have been filed by the o.p.No.2 / respondent No.2 herein.  But the financer Agrawal, who had advanced the finance to Mr Revatkar for purchase of Tata Sumo, had filed the consumer complaint.  The complainant Agrawal had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. He was simply financer and he could have recovered the loan amount from Mr Revatkar, if any portion of loan remained to be repaid, by filing civil suit and not by filing consumer complaint.  The insurance claim was lodged on the ground that the vehicle was stolen away by some culprits. 

6.      We agree with the submission of Ld. Counsel Mr B Lahiri for the appellant that respondent No.2 herein had insurable interest in the vehicle in question, the insurance claim lodged by Mr Revakar was repudiated by sending a letter to Mr Revatkar, who should have filed the consumer complaint and not by Mr Agrawal.  This fact was specifically pleaded by insurance co. in para 2 of their written statement filed before the Forum.  This fact is also specifically mentioned in para H of their appeal memo. 

7.      In the circumstances the consumer complaint as allowed by the Forum below at the behest of Agrawal is erroneous and bad in law and said award cannot be sustainable in law. The judgment and award passed by the Forum below needs to be quashed and set aside. Hence we pass the following order:-

ORDER

1.      Appeal is allowed.

2.      The judgment and award dtd. 30.08.2004 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal in CC Nov274/2001 in favour of the Mr Agrawal respondent No.1 herein is quashed and set aside.

3.      Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed.

4.      No order as to costs.

5.      Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

          Pronounced on 18.04.2011