The bank was considered a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the court upheld the alternative submission regarding the depreciated value of the insured vehicle.

ORDER

Arun Kumar Goel, President (Oral)- Admitted facts of this case are, that vehicle bearing registration No. HIS-9173, a 1988 Model Tata 1210 truck was insured in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 between 24.4.1997 and 23.4.1998 as per policy of insurance, copy whereof is Annexure R-1. It was insured on "IEV" (Insured's estimated value").

2. This vehicle during the validity of the insurance policy met with accident and was washed away. On receipt of intimation, surveyor was appointed, and as per his report its market value was assessed at Rs. 1,33,500. Surveyor's report is Annexure R-3 and its copy is at page 43 onwards of the complaint file. This amount was paid by the appellant to the liquidator of respondent No. 2, the registered owner of the vehicle as well as the respondent No. 1, its financier bank. At the time of hearing it was not again in dispute that the vehicle was financed by respondent No. 1-Bank.

3. While receiving amount vide Annexure R-5 on 23rd September, 1999 respondent No. 1 Bank (the financier), had issued a letter to the appellant on the same day that his amount has been received under protest. This was before the cheque was enchased.

4. After receipt of the amount and having protested, Complaint No. 39 of 2000 was filed by respondent No. 1 the financier bank, wherein registered owner was also arrayed as party besides the appellant. Though plea of there being no privity of contract between the bank and Insurance Company was pressed into service on behalf of the appellant, however, fact remains, that the appellant was dealing with the bank, and this is established from the payment having also been made to it being the financier. This complaint was contested on a number of grounds like bank having no locus standi to claim any amount, the claim was settled in full and final settlement and payment was made thereafter. Complaint was also barred by arbitration clause in the insurance policy. Bank was not shown either as a financier or the vehicle being hypothecated with it in the registration certificate or the insurance policy, as such it had no interest in the vehicle, so complaint was not maintainable. District Forum below after hearing the parties, as well as on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties allowed the complaint and has ordered the appellant to pay further sum of Rs. 1,66,500 along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint i.e., 27.12.1999 till actual payment was made, plus cost of Rs. 2,500. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted, that District Forum below was wrong when it ignored the objection of her client that there was no privity of contract between respondent No. 1-bank and the Insurance Company, as there was no entry either in the registration certificate or in the insurance policy showing banker's clause or the vehicle being hypothecated with the respondent No. 1. Further according to her once the amount was received vide discharge voucher Annexure R-5 in full and final settlement of the claim, the chapter stood closed for good and complaint was not maintainable. Lastly it was urged, that even if it be assumed without conceding, that complaint was maintainable by the bank, still fact remains that vehicle being 1988 model and it being admittedly insured at "IEV", therefore, the amount if any, was payable after allowing depreciation which in the instant case learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance, as per Annexure R-1 will be 40% of the "IEV". All these pleas have been resisted as well as contested by Mr. Verma, who submitted that impugned order suffers from no infirmity so as to allow this appeal. He thus prayed for dismissing the same with costs.

6. So far as plea regarding there being no privity of contract between the Insurance Company on one side, and the bank on the other is concerned, the position is belied after the amount was paid vide Annexure R-5 to the respondent No. 1 at its Chirgaon Branch by the appellant. Why and under wha