CHHABIRAM SAHU vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 18.4.2000 in Complaint No. 9/99 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called the "District Forum" for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

UNDISPUTEDLY the complainant/appellant purchased a Swaraj Mazda vehicle having registration No. MP23D/8732. The said vehicle was purchased after obtaining finance from Ashok Leyland Finance Co. under hire purchase agreement. The opposite party/respondent, insured the said vehicle for the period effective from 15.12.1997 to 14.12.1997. The said vehicle met with an accident on 14.1.1997 near Kondagaon. The complainant/appellant laid claim for Rs. 90,000/- with the respondent. However, the surveyor assessed the loss to be of Rs. 57,500/-. The cheque of the said amount was issued by the respondent and was handed over to the owner Financer Ashok Leyland Finance Co. The complainant/appellant in his complaint alleged that the cheque of the above amount could not be handed over to the financer Ashok Leyland Finance Co. and that the amount should have been paid to the complainant/appellant. He, accordingly, claimed recovery of the said amount with interest.

The insurer respondent resisted the claim as above. According to them, as per terms of policy the amount was legitimately payable by the respondent to the Finance Company. There was no deficiency in service on their part.

LEARNED District Forum upheld the defence version as above of the respondent insurer and held that as per terms of the policy and hire purchase agreement, the cheque was rightly handed over to the Finance Company and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Learned Counsels for the parties reiterated their respective stands in the District Forum.

APPELLANT''s Counsel urged that since the appellant was the owner of the vehicle, he was entitled to receive the amount from the respondent insurer. In the above context suffice it to mention that policy of insurance clearly stipulates that the money payable to the insured under this policy in respect of loss or damage to the motor vehicle shall be paid to the owners as long as they are the owners of the vehicle and their receipts shall be full and final discharge to the company in respect of such loss or damage. It is further stipulated therein by the appellant that hirer irrevocably appointed the owner as his agent for the purpose of receiving all monies payable under the said policy of insurance and giving discharge thereof and the owner may notify the insurance of this condition. The above stipulations leave no manner of doubt that the financer owner Ashok Leyland Finance Co. was entitled to receive the amount as was stipulated between the parties. The complainant/appellant in no uncertain terms had authorised the insurer to make the payment towards loss or damage to the financer described as owner in the said policy.

IN the circumstances, the learned District Forum was justified in holding so. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own cost of this appeal. Appeal dismissed.