10-09-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

1.       Due to long and uncertain period of absence of the Members, single member bench of President is functioning in their absence, in view of the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2014, in the matter of Mr. Netaji Surrendra Mohan Nayyar -vs- Citibank; and the judgement passed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the W.P. (C) No. 30939 of 2010 (N) P.K. Jose -vs- M. Aby & ors.

2.       Mr. M.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for O.P.3 - R-3 Hemant Kumar submitted that inspite of several communication, he has not received any instruction.

3.       Heard the parties.

4.       On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of about 8 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

5.       The Financer filed the present complaint case claiming the insurance amount against theft of the vehicle financed by it to Hemant Kumar.

6.       Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgement, whereas learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supported the impugned order. He submitted that there is no privity of contract between the Financer and the Insurance Company. He further submitted that from the insurance policy and the registration book it will appear that there is no endorsement of hypothecation in favour of the Financer.

7.       Learned District Forum after hearing the parties and considering various judgements on the point, held that there is no such decision that Financer of insured person can step into the shoes of the insured and file complaint case under the Consumer Protection Act. It further held that there is no privity of contract between the Insurance Company and the Financer.

8.       It appears that in the present case, the contract of insurance is between Hemant Kumar and the Insurance Company. The Financer is not party to such contract. Thus, there is no privity of contract between the Financer and the Insurance Company. Moreover, the terms of hire purchase agreement between Financer and Hemant Kumar are not binding on the Insurance Company.

9.       In the circumstances, it has been rightly held by learned District Forum that the complaint filed by the Financer was not maintainable.

10.     Thus, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order.

    Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

    Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

             Ranchi,

     Dated: 10-09-2015