ASSOCIATED BULK MOVERS vs RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.

APPELLANT was the opposite party before the State Commission where the respondents/complainants M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. and the Oriental Insurance Company have filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Associated Bulk Movers.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Reliance Industries entrusted a consignment of over 13 M/s of Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB) from its Unit at Patalganga to Chhindwara (M.P.) to be transported by the appellant Associated Bulk Movers. The said consignment was lost during transit on 29.9.94 and the appellant according to the complainant admitted non-delivery of the entire consignment and a certificate to this effect was also issued on 29.10.1994. Since the goods were also insured, the matter was reported to the Insurance Company, who assessed the loss at Rs. 6,43,434. This amount was paid by the Insurance Company to the Reliance Industries Ltd. after execution of letter of subrogation and special power of attorney in its favour. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed by Reliance Industries Ltd. jointly with Oriental Insurance Company against the Associated Bulk Movers before the State Commission who after hearing the parties directed the appellant transporter to pay Rs. 6,43,434 along with interest @ 18% p.a. to the Insurance Company as also cost of Rs. 30,000. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal was filed before us. Today at the time of final hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellant. There was representation through Counsel on behalf of the two respondents. We go on to decide the matter on merits based on material on record brought in by the appellant and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the respondents, we are clearly of the view that matter is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Insurance Company, II (2000) SLT 862=1 (2000) CPJ 7 (SC)=2000(2) SCC 407. There is no dispute that in the present case also a letter of ''assignment'' as well as letter of ''subrogation'' and general power of attorney has been executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent Insurance Company. The Hon''ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with this question in the judgment (supra) where after going through extensively into the meaning of ''Subrogation'' and ''Assignment'' the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that Insurance Company cannot be a ''consumer'' within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act for he had not hired the services. There is no disputing the fact that in the ''letter of subrogation'' and ''general power of attorney'' the word ''assignment'' and ''subrogation'' clearly appear, hence in these circumstances, this case stands fully covered by the judgement (supra) of the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

PARAS 21 and 22 of the judgment (supra) reads as follows: "21. Now, as is clear, the loss of the consignment had already occurred. All that was assigned and transferred by the second respondent to the first respondent was the right to recover compensation for the loss. There was no question of the first respondent being a beneficiary of the service that the second respondent had hired from the appellant. That service, namely, the transportation of the consignment, had already been availed of by the second respondent, and in the course of it the consignment had been lost. The first respondent, therefore, was not a ''consumer'' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, and was, therefore, not entitled to maintain the complaint. 22. By reason of the transfer and assignment of all the rights of the second respondent in the first respondent''s favour, the second respondent retained no right to recover compensation for the loss of the consignment. The addition of the second respondent to the complainant as a co-complainant did not, therefore, make the complaint maintainable. (Emphasis supplied)

In view of above, we are unable to maintain the complaint on the ground that the complainants were not ''consumers'' within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

IT was also argued by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in 2000 will have no applicability in the present case as the present case related to the period (1994), i.e., and the judgment (supra) was passed in the year 2000, implying thereby that the applicability of this judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court will have only prospective effect and for which he relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and Anr. VIII (2005) SLT 657=(2005) 12 SCC 717.

WE heard the learned Counsel and perused the judgment (supra) relied upon by him. In our view, this judgment will have no bearing in the present case for the simple reason that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cited case was dealing with the fact of ''statute of Parliament'' but we are not dealing in such a situation. What we are relying upon is the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in holding certain words like ''Subrogation'' and ''Assignment'' as also, limited to its applicability or reliance, in the context of Consumer Protection Act. We are unable to accept that the judgments which clarify and interpret meaning of a word will have only prospective effect. We have no difficulty in accepting that statutes enacted by the Legislature unless specifically spelled out to the contrary, shall have prospective effect but we are unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the respondents that the interpretation of the word given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court shall also have only prospective effect.

AS already discussed above, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Insurance Company, in the light of which we are in no position to hold the Insurance Company as hirer of the services of the appellant. The addition of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. as a co-applicant did not make any difference and cannot make the complaint maintainable.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, the Order of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, the respondents shall be free to seek remedy before any appropriate Forum, if so advised under appropriate law for which the time spent before the Consumer Fora can be sought to be exempted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1995) 3 SCC 583.