JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant purchased a vehicle getting the same financed from the petitioner company.  The vehicle was got insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,  The said vehicle having been damaged in fire, a claim was submitted for reimbursement in terms of the insurance policy taken by the complainant.  The claim having not been paid, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, impleading the insurer as the opposite party.  The petitioner was not impleaded as party to the consumer complaint.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the insurer but was allowed by the District Forum.

3.      The insurer did not challenge the order passed by the District Forum against it.  But the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission, challenging the order passed by the District Forum primarily on the ground that the amount payable by the insurer to the complainant should be paid to the petitioner company.  The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

4.      The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Clause 3.8 (c) of the Loan Agreement between the complainant and the petitioner, which provides that, if any, amount is received from an insurance company under any policy of insurance, the amount so realized may, at the sole discretion of the petitioner be utilized in replacement of loss or damage hypothecated assets or any liquidation of the loan of the borrower to the petitioner.  The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the aforesaid term contained in the loan agreement, the petitioner was a necessary party to the consumer complaint.  I however, do not find any merit in the contention.  The aforesaid clause refers to an amount, if any, received by the petitioner company from an insurer and it does not obligate the complainant to implead the petitioner as a party to any proceedings against the insurer.  Ordinarily, only a consumer and the service provider are the necessary party to a consumer complaint.  The petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be a necessary party to the dispute between the complainant on one hand and the insurer of the vehicle on the other hand.  If the amount, in compliance of the order of the District Forum has been paid to the complainant, the petitioner can recover the same from him, in accordance with law.  If the same amount is yet to be paid, he can still file a civil suit against the petitioner for recovery of the said amount and in that civil suit, he can seek an interim direction to the insurer not to make payment to the complainant during pendency of that suit.  It can also approach the District Forum with an application to direct the insurer to pay the said amount to it.  But, there is no necessity of a denovo trial.

5.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the State Commission.  The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.