Heard the parties counsel and gone through the material on record.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.283 of 2003 confirming the order of the District Forum to the effect that in terms of clause 6 of Hire Purchase Agreement as well as Clause 1 of IMT 10 of the policy, the amount was payable to the owner.

There is no dispute about the fact that in an accident, the vehicle  Swaraj Mazda  having registration No.MP23D/8732 met with an accident on 14.1.97 near Kondagaon, Raipur. The surveyor was appointed and he assessed the loss of Rs.57,500/-. The amount had already been paid to the owner M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Co., who had given the vehicle on hire purchase basis to the complainant/petitioner. M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Co. after receiving the amount given the adjustment to the complainant/petitioner in his account.  The grievance of the petitioner, as submitted by the learned counsel, is that the petitioner has suffered the loss of the amount, which he has himself spent initially by paying the amount as margin money.

A short question, which has arisen would relate to how far this payment made to M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Co.was justified.

There is no dispute in between the parties that as per clause 6 of Hire Purchase Agreement, the complainant had authorized M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Co. as his agent to receive the amount of compensation from the opposite party. Consequently, M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Co. was authorized and payment was accepted by M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Co. on their own behalf as well as on behalf of the complainant/petitioner. Since the payment has been made to the authorized person, it could not be said to be any deficiency. It may further be mentioned that IMT 10 of the Insurance Policy provides as under:-

“It is hereby understood and agreed that – (herein after referred to as the Owners) are the owners of the Motor Vehicle and that the Motor Vehicle is the subject of a Hire Purchase Agreement made between the Owners of the one part and the Insured of the other part and it is further understood and agreed that the Owners are interested in any monies which but for this Endorsement would be payable to the Insured under this Policy in respect of loss or damage to the Motor Vehicle (which loss or damage is not made good by repair reinstatement or replacement) and such monies shall be paid to the Owners as long as they are the Owners of the Motor Vehicle and their receipt shall be a full and final discharge to the Company in respect of such loss or damage.”

               This clause also justifies the conduct of the respondent in making the payment to M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Co.

For the aforesaid circumstances, the payment made to M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Co. was justified. Since M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Co. had not been made a party, no order adverse to their interest can be passed in these proceedings.

In the above-said circumstances, revision petition is devoid of any force and it is dismissed accordingly.