Back
UTTARANCHAL STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President &
Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL—Respondent
Appeal No. 463 of 2003—Decided on 11.6.2004
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mrs. Anjali Gusain, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. T.S. Bindra, Advocate.
A beneficiary of goods or services, even if not the purchaser, is entitled to claim the insurance amount and is covered by the definition of the word complainant.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Theft - Motor Vehicles Act - Consumer Protection Act - [Motor Vehicles Act, Consumer Protection Act] - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Consumer Protection Act in relation to the ownership and insurance of the vehicle. It highlighted the principle that a beneficiary of the goods or services, even if not the purchaser, is covered by the definition of the word complainant. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support the claim of the complainant as a beneficiary entitled to the insured amount.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a vehicle on lease basis and got it comprehensively insured. The vehicle was stolen, and the Insurance Company neglected to settle the claim. The complaint was filed before the District Forum, which allowed the complaint. The appeal was filed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant, as the de facto owner of the vehicle, was entitled to the insured amount. It held that the complainant, as a beneficiary, is covered by the definition of the word complainant and is entitled to claim the insurance amount.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant, as the de facto owner of the vehicle, was entitled to the insured amount, and whether the Insurance Company was liable to settle the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a beneficiary of the goods or services, even if not the purchaser, is covered by the definition of the word complainant. It also emphasized that in cases of hire purchase or lease, the person who has actually brought or hired the goods or services, and the beneficiary who avails the same with their approval, are entitled to file a complaint.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court directed that the Insurance Company should not pay any amount to the leasing company under the insurance, and should be deemed absolved of the liability after payment to the complainant.
Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an appeal against the order dated 22.10.2001 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar whereby the complaint of the complainant for recovery of insured amount on theft of the vehicle was allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Tata Sumo from opposite party No. 1 of the complaint on lease basis. It is he who got the vehicle registered with the RTO and got it comprehensively insured for a sum of Rs 3,72,000/- (Rupees three lacs seventy-two thousand). It was assigned to the complainant on hire and regular monthly payment continued to be drawn by the opposite party No. 1, M/s. Rockland Leasing Ltd. Opposite party No. 2 is the Branch Manager of the said company while opposite party No. 3 is the insurer. Advance post-dated cheques have been given to the opposite party No. 1 as price of the vehicle. As soon as the total payment could have been completed, it was to be transferred in the name of the complainant. The vehicle was in the possession of the complainant as owner, in the use and benefit of the complainant. In the registration papers name of M/s. Rockland Leasing Ltd. is given. In the night of 1st September, 1997 the vehicle was stolen by the miscreants. FIR was lodged with the police station and the opposite parties were informed for taking necessary action. It is alleged that out of the total price the complainant had already paid by the date of the complaint Rs. 2,05,402/- (Rupees two lacs five thousand four hundred two) to the opposite party No. 1 and the remaining amount has been paid by post-dated cheques. The Insurance Company neglected to settle the claim. Therefore, the complaint was filed before the learned Forum.
3. The complainant filed an affidavit before the learned Forum to prove his allegations on 12.6.2001.
4. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 did not contest the complaint filed by the complainant. Only the Insurance Company contested the complaint and it was alleged that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Insurance Company. The insurance is in the name of opposite party No. 1, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any amount.
5. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the learned Forum allowed the complaint. Against which order, the present appeal has been filed.
6. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. The same dispute was raised before us as well
7. It is admitted that the vehicle is in the name of M/s. Rockland Leasing Ltd. In fact these are the companies which provide finance for the purchase of the vehicles and in the form of a mediator they take the money from the purchaser day by day and get the vehicle in their name from the dealer and when the entire amount is paid they transfer the vehicle in the name of the purchaser. Till the whole amount is paid the transaction remains in the form of hire purchase or lease, so in this case. The vehicle was purchased for a sum of Rs. 3,71,858/- (Rupees three lacs seventy-one thousand eight hundred fifty-eight). The complainant has alleged that he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,05,402/- (Rupees two lacs five thousand four hundred two) till the date of theft and the balance was also paid through post-dated cheques.
8. Notices were issued to M/s. Rockland Leasing Ltd. but they did not contest, therefore, the allegations against them shall be taken to be correct. At least had M/s. Rockland Leasing Ltd. got any ownership, interest or to get any price in view of the fact that the insurance was in their name, they should have immediately rushed to the Forum and should have filed written statement that they are the owners of the vehicle, they are insured and they should be paid the amount but they did not take any interest. It appears, therefore, that the amount has been paid to the dealer by actual payment and as well as post-dated cheques. There is nothing on record to show that the post-dated cheques have not
