Judgment:
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member
In the instant appeals, same point of law with identical facts arises and hence these appeals heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
In all these three appeals, appellants No.1/org. complainants No.1 are the owner of the vehicles, which were insured with respondent/org. O.P.-Insurance Company. Those vehicles were hypothecated with appellant No.2/org. complainant No.2-City Corp Finance India Ltd. All of them have transferred the vehicles before the event i.e. event of theft. The insurance claim was repudiated in all these cases on the ground that since vehicles were transferred with parting of possession prior to the date of event, there was no insurable interest left with the insured/org. complainant No.1 from these matters. Forum below uphold the contention of the Insurance Company and holding that the repudiation was proper, complaints were not admitted by the impugned orders. Feeling aggrieved thereby, org. complainants preferred these appeals.
We heard Mr.S.P. Bharati, Advocate for the appellants/org. complainants and Mr.R.M. Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent/org.O.P.-Insurance Company.
In the instant cases, it appears that only one Member namely D.S. Bidnurkar had signed the impugned orders. It is not sure whether hearing has taken place before properly constituted Bench of the Forum below or not as per requirements of Section 10(1) r/w Section 12(3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as âActâ for brevity). Considering the theme of the Act, every proceeding before the Forum below is to be conducted by the President of the District Consumer Forum and at least one Member thereof sitting together. If not, at least two Members should sit together to hear and pass order including the order of rejection of the complaint contemplated under Section 12(3) of the Act. This is not followed in these matters and therefore, the impugned orders referable to all the three appeals are suffered from illegality and consequently, all the three impugned orders are nonest in the eyes of law.
The appellants in the instant cases referring to Section 4(3) of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 tried to advance submission that in the instant cases, it is not the sale, but only an agreement to sell and goods are not yet transferred. The vehicles are movable property. Possession is already parted with under the transactions of sale. Since, we intend to remit the matters back to the Forum below for proper hearing before properly constituted Bench, we do not wish to make any comment over the validity of the above referred argument advanced on behalf of the appellants and which is not subscribed by the respondents. The Forum below, if such point is raised, should consider the same on its merit.
For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
Order:
1. Appeal Nos.1297 to 1299/2008 are allowed.
2. Impugned orders dated 28/02/2008 in A-1297/2008, A-1298/2008 and A-1299/2008 are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the Forum below with directions to dispose them of as per provisions of law after giving both sides an opportunity of hearing.
3. In the given circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.