NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 102 OF 2011
(From order dated 25.10.2010 in Appeal No. 2201 of 2009
of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh )
Amar Singh Mandelia,
S/o Shri Bowad Singh,
R/o Village Janarpura,
Post- Bijauli,
District Gwalior (M. P.)
…Petitioner
1. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through Manager,
ICICI Bank, First Floor,
Hotel Shelter Building,
Shastri Chowk, Padav,
Lakshar, Gwalior (M. P.)
2. Samadhiya Finance Services Pvt. Ltd.
Through Manager, Regd. Office,
Naka Chandrabadani,
Jhansi Road, Gwalior.
……Respondents
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Shukla, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Nikita Parmar, proxy counsel
No. 1 Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent
No. 2 : Ex parte
Pronounced on: 1st February, 2013
ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
Brief facts are that
a vehicle (tractor) was purchased by Petitioner/Complainant from respondent No. 2/O.P.No. 1. It was registered in his name on 1.9.2007 and was insured for the period from 25.6.2007 to 24.6.2008. However, the policy was issued in the name of respondent no.2.
In the meanwhile, the tractor was stolen on 7.10.2007.
2. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (for short, ‘District Forum’) vide order dated 27.08.2009, allowed the complaint of the petitioner.
3. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, Respondent No. 1/ O.P. No. 2 filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal(for short, ‘ State Commission’) which vide impugned order dated 25.10.2010, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of District Forum. State Commission also held that so far the claim of respondent No. 2 is concerned, the same shall remain unaffected by its order.
4. Hence, this revision.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that
respondent no. 2 was never the owner of the vehicle and issuance of insurance policy in its name by the insurance company is an act of the unfair trade practice.
Petitioner has paid Rs.4,566/- to the respondent no. 2 towards insurance of the vehicle. Under these circumstances, respondent no.1 could not have issued the policy in the name of respondent no. 2.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 argued that
petitioner himself has stated that insurance of the tractor is not in his name.
As such in the absence of any insurance in the name of petitioner, he has no locus-standi to file the complaint.
7. The question that arises for consideration is as to
whether petitioner could have laid a claim against respondent no. 1-the Insurance Co, as insurance on the date of the theft was not in the name of petitioner but respondent no.2.
8. State Commission while allowing the appeal observed ;
“As we see the position that emerges on 7.10.2007 when
the vehicle was stolen was that the insurance policy was in the name of respondent no. 2 and it was respondent no. 2 who could have laid a claim for the amount of insurance on account of theft of the vehicle. Respondent No. 1 did not have any insurable interest subsisting on 7.10.2007 and therefore, could not have made any claim from the Insurance Co. on account of theft of the tractor”.
9. Petitioner in its entire complaint has made no averment against respondent no. 1 that he has paid any amount to respondent no. 1 for the purpose of insurance of the vehicle or any insurance policy was issued in his name.
Thus, admittedly there is no privity of contract between petitioner and respondent no. 1.
10. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, ‘Act’).
It is well settled that the powers of this Commission as a Revisional Court are very limited and have to be exercised only, if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of power under section 21 (b) of the Act. Present petition being without any legal basis is hereby dismissed.
12. No order as to cost.
……..……………………J
(V.B. GUPTA)
( PRESIDING MEMBER)
…………………………J
(K.S. CHAUDHARI)
MEMBER
