STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA CIRCUIT BENCH, KOLHAPUR Appeal No. A/18/482 (Arisen out of order passed by Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolhapur in C.C. No. 22/2017 dated 20/03/2018)

Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through Senior Executive – Claims Shri Umakant Prabhakar Shirsat R/o 3rd Floor, East Wing, Forbous building, Charanjit Rai Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 …. APPELLANT Vs.

1) Shri Anil Abbas Kurane R/o Shiye,Vithal Nagar, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur

2) Sou.Aruna Anil Kurane R/o Shiye,Vithal Nagar, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur ....RESPONDENT BEFORE :

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P.Tavade, President Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member Present : Adv. P.R.Kolekar for the Appellant Adv. R.N. Pawar for the Respondent

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order passed in Consumer Complaint No.22/2017 dated 20/03/2018 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur.

Facts of the Appeal

2. It is contended in the appeal memo that the Mercedes Benz Car No.MH-43/S-4343 owned by Shri Sandeep Pandurang Sutar was insured with Appellant insurance company under policy No. 2013-V- 2598129 FPV-94 for the period 18/09/2013 to 17/09/2014. In the said policy, personal accident cover of Rs. 1,00,000/- to five unnamed passengers was given. The said car met with a an accident on 3/11/2012 on Pune Bangalore Highway near Pulachi Shiroli, Tal. Hatkanangale, Dist. Kolhapur. At the time of accident, the said car was driven by one Shri Manjur Shaikh who was holding only learners license. The son of applicant Kum. Pravin Kurane, Kum. Ajij Mujawar and Kum. Omkar Ghorpade who were travelling as occupants in the said car, died on the spot. As per IMT rules and procedure, personal accident claim of unnamed passengers travelling in car has to be submitted through owner alongwith necessary vehicle documents and police papers. But complainant, without following said procedure, has directly sent notice through Advocate. Appellant by reply notice dated 12/08/2016, through their Adv. has sent reply thereby informing that claim ought to be filed through owner and with his consent, with all necessary documents. But the complainant, without observing said procedure, filed complaint before the learned Dist. Forum Kolhapur on 20/01/2017. In the said complaint, appellant appeared and filed their say wherein it is contended that claim has to be filed through owner and with his counsel. Also, it is contended that driver of Car Shri Manjur Shaikh was holding learners license and hence, as there is breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy as well as statutory provisions of the M.V. Act, appellant is not liable for payment of compensation. Communication between appellant and insured and his reply was produced. So also police papers and policy were produced and case law of National Commission was produced which was neither considered nor referred by the learned Forum. In spite of these valuable evidence on record, the learned Forum allowed the complaint. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the present appellant has filed this appeal.

Grounds of appeal

3. The learned forum has not considered the fact that contract of insurance is between owner of car Sh. Sandeep Pandurang Suar and appellant and there is no privity of contract between appellant and complainant. The owner Sh. Sandeep Pandurang Sutar was not made party to said consumer complaint. The learned forum has wrongly interpreted Sec. 2(b) & 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act which defines complainant and consumer. As per definition of complainant, in sec. 2(b) of the Act, Consumer personally himself or one or more consumes where there are numerous consumers, and in case of death of consumer, his legal heir will come under the definition of complainant. In the present case, complainant has not purchased an