ORDER<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint, version of the opponent No.1, affidavit of the complainant and the documents produced by both the parties including the written arguments of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant Under Section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 against the opponents for directing the opponent No.1 to set right the deficiency in service committed by him and to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and cost of the complaint etc.,.<br /> <br /> 3. After filing of the complaint, the opponent No.1 appeared before the Forum through his counsel and filed the version along with cheque for Rs.34,563/- in favour of the opponent No.2 towards the policy amount. Subsequently, on 12.10.2010 the opponent No.2 appeared before the Forum and received the said cheque from this Forum and the complainant has also conceded for the payment of the said amount to the assignee Bank-opponent No.2. Thus, after the payment of the policy amount to the assignee Bank-opponent No.2, the complainant’s counsel urged for awarding the compensation and cost of the complaint, on the ground that the opponent No.1 has deliberately delayed the matter of payment of the policy amount. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opponent No.1 submitted that in connection with the assigned policy, the complainant has no locus standi to claim compensation for any deficiency in service and the opponent No.1 has already settled the policy amount to the assignee Bank-opponent No.2 and thus urged for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.<br /> <br /> 4. Bearing in mind, the aforesaid contentions of both the sides, now we shall proceed to see whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation and costs as urged by his counsel. As already stated above, the learned counsel appearing for the opponent No.1 has contended that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and costs of the complaint as he has no locus standi to file this complaint. In support of the said contention the learned counsel appearing for the opponent No.1 has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission passed in Revision Petition No.106/1990 dated 12.07.1991 reported in LIC Consumer Cases 1991 page 268 (Alex. J. Rebello V/S LIC of India and another). On the perusal of the said decision clearly discloses that, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that as per section 38(5) of the Insurance Act, the insurer is bound to recognize the transferee or the assignee as the only person entitled for the benefit under the policy. In the same decision, the Hon’ble National Commission has clearly observed in para No.13 to the effect that any delay in taking the action on the communication or claim of the insured in the case of policy which is assigned cannot give raise to a complaint of deficiency in service against the Insurance Company in the absence of any obligation of the Insurance Company towards the insured under the assigned policy. In this case also, the complainant has admittedly assigned the policy in favour of the opponent No.2-Syndicate Bank and the policy amount is already paid to the assignee Bank by the Insurance Company-opponent No.1 and this complaint is filed by the insured claiming the compensation for the deficiency in service. The principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decision aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, we have no other alternative except to say that the complainant has failed to prove that he is entitled for any compensation and costs of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of all the aforesaid reasons and the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the opponent No.1, we have no other alternative except to hold that the complaint filed by the complainant- insured against the insurer-opponent No.1 claiming the compensation for the deficiency in service in connection with the assigned policy is not maintainable and therefore the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and costs of the complaint as urged by his counsel. Consequently, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with a direction to the parties to bear their own costs. Hence, in the final result, we proceed to pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint is hereby dismissed.<br /> Parties are directed to bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />