Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President — The original complainant being aggrieved by the order of the City District Forum, Ahmedabad dated 17-9-91 has filed this appeal. The appeal was posted for hearing on 30-4-92 but since the members were absent it could not be taken up for hearing and the case was posted for hearing today.

2. The only point arises for our consideration in this matter is whether the District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint only on the ground that Mr. Hiren Ladia, the person on whose name the insurance was taken was not made a party. We find that the insurance was taken by the complainant in the name of his three sons who were members of the H.U.F. He was claiming income tax benefits for the premium paid by the HUF. The Annexure-A to the policy in clear terms states the full name and address of the Karta of HUF and admittedly the present complainant Pransukhlal P. Ladia, is the Karta of HUF. The names of the sons as members of HUF have been shown in question No. 3 and one of the insured is Mr. Hiren.

3. The note in Annexure-A being important is reproduced which reads as under :

“If this policy is proposed for the benefit of HUF so as to form a part of HUF asset and premiums under the policy are to be paid from out of HUF funds, the policy will belong to the HUF and in consequence the life assured will not be entitled to make an assignment or nomination under the policy nor will he be entitled to draw any loan thereunder or surrender the same.”

The question No. 1 reads as under :

“1. What is the subject of this assurance? Is it to be financed from out of Hindu Undivided family Funds? (Please See Note below).

The answer is: Tax benefit (H.U.F. Benefit).”

According to our opinion there is no doubt that the Policy was for the benefit of HUF, payment was agreed to be made from the HUF fund and HUF only was entitled for tax benefits. There was no power of nomination or assignment. Though the members’ life has been insured the beneficiary of any amount would be the HUF.

4. The District Forum has raised the question whether as to who was paying the premium and had long discussion which to our opinion is immaterial. Once the policy is taken in the name of HUF any member can make a contribution on behalf of HUF and he can claim that amount from HUF. It was immaterial whether HUF made the payment of premiums of any of the members.

5. It is also evident that the amount of insurance of two other sons have been paid through the HUF and so far the 3rd son is concerned the voucher appears to have been sent to the Karta but somehow or the other Mr. Hiren, one of the sons could obtain the payment of the policy surreptitiously and this came to the notice of the complainant only when he received the voucher which in turn was sent for the signature and thereupon he knew that his son has already received the money. To our opinion this procedure followed by the Insurance Company is not legal and does not discharge the liability of the Insurance Company to make the payment to the Karta of HUF. In this case there was no scope or argument or discussion. If the Insurance Company wanted to join Mr. Hiren, it could have made application to the Court for joining him as a party. But the situation did not require the presence of Mr. Hiren who has surreptitiously obtained this amount. The Insurance Company can recover this amount from Mr. Hiren but that makes no difference so far liability of the Insurance Company towards the complainant is concerned.

6. We are therefore of the opinion that the payment made by the Insurance Company contrary to its contract and policy is not a valid and legal payment and does not discharge the Insurance Company from making the payment to the real owner the complainant. The judgment of the District Forum shall have to be set aside. We may also observe at this stage that so far the matters under the Consumer Protection Act are concerned the technicality and legality of procedures should not come in the w