K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Insurance Ombudsman has rejected the complaints filed by Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Limited under Rule 13 of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998, (for short “the Rules”) claiming an amount of Rs.9,44,551/- with interest from the United India Insurance Company Limited and also Rs.10,94,404/- with interest from the National Insurance company Limited. Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi dismissed both the complaints stating as follows:

“On an examination of the allegations in the complaint and the cause title of the complaint, I find that the insured is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and hence the Insurance policy cannot be said to have been taken on “Personal Lines” or in other words, in an “individual Capacity” as defined in Rule 4 (i) and in Rule (k) of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 and as such, the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi has no jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint and grant the relief.”

2. Petitioner, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, contended before the learned single judge that the Ombudsman was not justified in rejecting the complaints filed under Rule 13 of the Rules stating that the insurance policy was not taken on personal line., It was also pointed out that the objects of the rules are stated to be to resolve all complaints relating to settlement of claim on the part of the insurance companies in cost effective, efficient and impartial manner and therefore it was contended that there was no justification in excluding companies from the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Interpreting Rues 12 and 13 of the Rules, learned single judge took the view that there was nothing in the rule to indicate that a company, for the only reason of its incorporated status was to lose privilege of a speedy adjudicating mechanism. It was also held that on the face of the above provisions, to suggest that the petitioner has to go through the ordeal of a civil suit running for years when the matter could have been adjudicated within a few weeks was beyond one’s comprehension. Learned single judge therefore set aside Ext.P2 order and held that the complaint preferred under Rule 13 is maintainable and that the Ombudsman has got jurisdiction to examine those complaints filed by the incorporated companies as well. National Insurance Company as well as the Insurance Ombudsman are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single judge and have filed these appeals.

3. Sri George Cherian, counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company, submitted that the learned single judge has committed an error in holding that the Insurance Ombudsman has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint preferred by a private limited company. Counsel submitted that the scheme of the rules specifically excludes policies taken by the Corporation/Association etc. since insured person means an individual by whom or on whose behalf on insurance policy has been taken on personal lines. Counsel submitted that the learned single judge ought to have found that “any person” referred to in Rule 13 as insured only is entitled to make a complaint. Counsel appearing for the Insurance Ombudsman Sri Bechu Kurian Thomas submitted that Insurance Ombudsman should not have been impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition. Counsel referred to the decision of the apex court Andhra Pradesh S.R.T.C. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1998 (7) SCC 353) and contended that while construing the statutory provision and deciding the scope of power of the Ombudsman it is not necessary for the court to make that authority a party. Counsel however tried to justify the decision of the Ombudsman holding that complaint under Rule 13 by a limited company is not maintainable.

4. The Insurance Act, 1938 as amended by Act 42 of 2002 and 11 of 2003 is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the business of insurance. Section 114 of the Act confers power on the Central Government