New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs S.S.ROADLINES

THIS appeal is by the New India Assurance Company as well as M/s. Pure Foods Ltd. The challenge to the order of the District Forum, Ferozepur dated April 22, 1998 on the complaint filed by New India Assurance Co. The complaint was dismissed.

ONLY brief facts are required to be noticed as the complainant New India Assurance Company could not be held to be a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act entitled to file the complaint alone. The New India Assurance Company is doing the business of insurance covering different types of risks. The Company had sold an insurance policy to M/s. Pure Foods Ltd. covering risk of articles (vegetable oils and products) being sent by them to different places in the country. M/s. Pure Foods Ltd. was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in the complaint, who was described as a consumer by the complainant Company having hired their services for consideration. On September 4, 1996, opposite party No. 2 despatched 235 tins of Cotton Seed Oil (refined), 165 tins of Sunflower refined and 50 boxes of Cotton Seed refined Oil to M/s. Karnal Agency, Chandigarh. The goods were sent through S.S. Roadlines, a Transporter. The goods were sent through truck No. HNN 1084 from Abohar to Chandigarh. They were covered under the insurance policy dated October 8, 1995. Since the consignment did not reach the destination as the truck met with an accident near Patiala, the goods were damaged and were returned to the consignor, opposite party No. 2. Hence opposite party No. 2 lodged a claim with the Insurance Company. After the Surveyor assessed the loss, the Insurance Company paid a sum of Rs. 1,32,375/- and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as fee paid to. The aforesaid amount was paid by the Insurance Company to M/s. Pure Foods Limited. After getting a letter of Subrogation and Power of Attorney from the aforesaid Company, the Insurance Company filed the present complaint before the District Forum claiming the aforesaid amount as paid to M/s. Pure Foods Limited from the transporter S.S. Roadlines, Abohar. The transporter was ex parte before the District Forum. On the evidence produced by the complainant, the impugned order was passed. On the facts as stated above, it cannot be said that the Insurance Company was either a consumer having hired the services of transporter or a beneficiary under such a contract. If the insured who had hired the services of transporter had joined the Insurance Company in filing the complaint, the position would have been different that the complaint was to be held to be maintainable as M/s. Pure Foods Ltd. had hired the services of the transporter in the matter of transporting of the goods despatched. But, since there was no contract between New India Assurance Company and S.S. Roadlines, it cannot be said that New India Assurance Company was a beneficiary of any contract between M/s. Pure Foods Ltd. and S.S. Roadlines. Thus, the Insurance Company could not be held to be a consumer entitled to file the complaint. The mere fact that the Insurance Company had obtained a Subrogation Letter will not bestow the status of a consumer on the complainant Insurance Company.

Since no order adverse to the interests of M/s. Pure Foods Limited, opposite party No. 2 was passed by the District Forum, no appeal could be filed by opposite party No. 2. Thus, for all intents and purposes the appeal is by the Insurance Company. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed, for the reasons stated above leaving the Insurance Company to approach the Civil Court for the remedy, if so advised. Appeal dismissed.