NARAINDAS TEJPAL GENERAL MERCHANTS & COMMISSION AGENTS Vs. BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the learned Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (in short, 'the State Commission') in CD Case No. 28 of 2000 Umakant Gupta Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. by which, complaint was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Adinath Oil Industries, Udaipur who had taken marine open declaration policy from OP, consigned 145 quintals of lose mustard oil in Vehicle No. DL-1 G-1373 worth Rs.4,00,000/- to complainant/appellant. On 22.11.1997, the vehicle met with an accident and there was loss of some quantity of oil due to pilferage from the tanker. Matter was reported at Police Station and to OP/respondent. Respondent appointed surveyor and found that there was shortage of 74 quintals and 30 kgs. mustard oil and surveyor assessed loss of Rs.1,96,895.06, but OP asked complainant to settle for Rs.1,32,624/-, which was denied by complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was not maintainable due to misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further submitted that complainant Umakanta Gupta is neither insured, nor beneficiary and partnership firm of complainant cannot carry-on-business for their self-employment and do not fall within purview of consumer. It was further submitted that surveyor assessed loss of 49.60 quintal worth Rs.1,28,862.76 and OP rightly sent disbursement voucher to complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint on the ground that complainant was not competent to file complaint as there was no provision in partnership deed authorising complainant to file complaint on behalf of partnership firm.

(3.) Appellant filed application for amendment of complaint and memo of appeal and that application was allowed and complainant filed amended memo of parties in the complaint and amended memo of appeal depicting firm as complainant through its partner Umakanta Gupta.