An insurance company is liable to pay the insured amount to the beneficiary of the insurance services, even if the beneficiary is not the person who purchased the insurance policy.

Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President— United India Insurance Company Limited has come up in appeal against die order dated 11th April, 1997 passed by learned District Forum, Panipat, whereby complaint filed by Sh. Rajesh Chhabra impleading United India Insurance Company as well as Rajan Aggarwal as opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 claiming indemnification for the loss caused by theft of the Maruti Zen Car insured with the United India Insurance Company was allowed.

2. Complainant Rajesh Chhabra had approached District Forum, Panipat with the grievance that a new Maruti Zen Car was purchased on 30th March, 1995 by Rajan Aggarwal (opposite party No. 2) for Rs. 2,99,624/-. Thereafter it was sold to the complainant on 12th April, 1995 by executing special power of attorney and a receipt therefor. After the vehicle was delivered to the complainant he got the same insured with the United India Insurance Company on the following day i.e. 13th April, 1994 for Rs. 3,06,000/- and obtained insurance policy valid for a year w.e.f. 13th April, 1995 to 12th April, 1996. The policy was obtained in the name of the original owner namely Rajan Aggarwal, whose name stood recorded as owner of the vehicle in the temporary registration certificate. Since the car was stolen from the house of complainant Rajesh Chhabra, No. 813, HUDA Colony, Panipat on the intervening night of 25th/26th April, 1995 he immediately lodged a report with the Police Station, Chandni Bagh, Panipat vide F.I.R. No. 91. Though the complainant had lodged the claim with the United India Insurance Company immediately after the theft of car, yet the Insurance Company did not make the payment. The complainant again approached the Insurance Company after the police had given the final untraceable report with the plea, that even Investigators appointed by the Insurance Company had ascertained the factual position and had verified that the car was in fact stolen and the Insurance Company was liable to pay the insured amount. Aggrieved by the indifference of the Insurance Company the complainant approached the District Forum for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,06,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% as also a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of damages alleging deficiency in service on their part.

3. So far as opposite party No. 1 Rajan Aggarwal is concerned, no reply was filed but ti-ie Insurance Company filed their reply to contest the complaint. In their reply even though the factual position was admitted by the Insurance Company regarding the insurance of the vehicle and also accepted the report of their Investigator regarding the theft of the car yet pleaded that the complainant-Rajesh Chhabra had no insurable interest in the vehicle. The learned District Forum after examining the documentary evidence produced on record with regard to the issuance of the insurance policy came to the conclusion that the insurance policy had been obtained by the complainant-Rajesh Chhabra himself and not by Rajan Aggarwal. In view of this position, the complaint has been allowed as deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company stood established.

4. In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the United India Insurance Company has vehemently reiterated the stand taken by the Company before the District Forum and has contended that the complaint should have been filed by Mr. Rajan Aggarwal and not by the complainant-Rajesh Chhabra. So far as the merits of the case is concerned the facts of registration of the vehicle and its theft have been admitted by the Insurance Company. On behalf of the respondents their learned Counsel has pleaded that once the theft of the car insured with the Insurance Company has fully been established, the question of not paying the amount to the complainant did not arise especially when the original owner Rajan Aggarwal has not opposed the claim. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we do not find any merit in the plea raised by the appella