Valmiki J Mehta, J.

The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.3.2001 whereby the suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff/insured against the Appellant/Defendant/insurance company was decreed.

2. Before the Trial Court and before this Court, there were two principal issues on which arguments were addressed. The first was with respect to the stand of the Appellant of lack of privity of contract of the Respondent/Plaintiff with the Appellant and the second was of the Respondent/Plaintiff being not the owner of the insured vehicle and hence not having an insurable interest in the vehicle with respect to which claim was filed.

3. The facts of the case are that the Respondent/Plaintiff a finance company, entered into a lease agreement with one Mr. Jagdish Prashad for a Bajaj Matador Tempo No. DL-1L-A-7297 (make 1994) vide agreement dated 17.2.1994 and thereby financed the vehicle. According to the insured/Respondent/Plaintiff since lease installments were not being paid by Sh. Jagdish Prashad, the vehicle was taken back from him and thereafter given to the Respondent No. 2, Sh. Prempal K