Order no.5               Date: 22.06.2023

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no.2/petitioner is present.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party nos. 1, 3 and 4 is also present.

The Misc. Application dated 29.09.2022 filed by the opposite party no.2/petitioner on the prayer to expunge the name of opposite party no.2 in CC/196/2020 is taken up for hearing along with its written objection filed by the complainant.

Perused. Considered. Heard both sides.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no.2/petitioner submits that the opposite party no.2 is a proprietarily limited company registered in Australia having its Registered Office at, 49, Suscatand Street, Rocklea, Qld-4106, Australia, postal address GPO Box 1981 Brisbane, Qld-4001, Australia and is into trading, exporting, shipping, manufacturing, importing and distribution of legumes and pulses and a wide variety of foodstuff. It is the contention of the opposite party no.2/petitioner that the complainant had purchased consignment of EU origin whole yellow peas from the opposite party no.2 which was insured by the opposite party no.1, who repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant. The opposite party no.2 is the company who only sold the consignment of EU origin whole yellow peas to the complainant and the services of the opposite party no.2 is not the subject matter of the complaint case. Therefore, opposite party no.2 is not a necessary or proper party to the case and prays for expunge the name of opposite party no.2 from CC/196/2020.

In reply Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the opposite party no.2 sold consignment of EU origin whole yellow peas together with a certificate of insurance covering the risk of the said consignment. The certificate of insurance is an open policy issued by opposite party no.1 in favour of opposite party no.2 and at the time of the sale of the said consignment of peas to the complainant, the opposite party no.2 assigned the name of the complainant in the said open policy and accordingly a certificate of insurance was issued in the name of the complainant countersigned by the opposite party no.2. According to the complainant, there is a joint liability of both opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 in depriving the complainant from his legitimate claim under the coverage of relevant insurance policy. In view of the facts opposite party no.2 is necessary as well as proper party to this case and for the purpose of proper adjudication the presence of opposite party no.2 is required in the case.

Having considered the submission of both sides and materials on record we are of the opinion that the presence of opposite party no.2 is required in the case for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. From photocopy of the insurance policy annexed with the complaint application in CC/196/2020, it appears that opposite party no.2 is one of the signatory to the certificate of insurance.

Therefore, we find no merit in the Misc. Application dated 29.09.2022 filed by opposite party no.2/petitioner and the same is liable to be rejected.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the Misc. Application be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only.