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