Patel Roadways Ltd. vs Addison and Co. Ltd.

THE gist of the complaint is that a consignment of 47 cases containing Addison tools were entrusted by the 1st complainant to the opposite party at Chennai for delivery at New Delhi. THE consignment was delivered in a damaged condition and, therefore, the complainant claimed compensation from the opposite party for the short delivery. Since the opposite party did not settle the claim and as the consignment was insured with the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party settled the claim of the complainant and thereafter the 1st complainant executed a letter of subrogation with a special power of attorney in favour of the 2nd complainant viz., the Insurer. THE short delivery of the consignment is only due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. THErefore, the opposite party is liable to pay the value of the consignment short-delivered. This complaint was preferred by the consignor viz., the 1st complainant and the insurer viz., the 2nd complainant against the carrier viz., M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd.

THE District Forum, Chennai (North) accepted the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,31,432/- with interest @ 12% per annum and cost of Rs. 1,000/- holding that there was deficiency in service. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party has now preferred this appeal.

The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal have already been extracted above. Therefore, it is needless to pen them again for the purpose of discussion.

THE 1st complainant has recovered the value of the goods short delivered from the Insurer and the insurer has got the letter of subrogation from the 1st complainant and thus the present claim is now made by the Insurance Company for recovering what they have paid to the 1st complainant on account of the short delivery effected by the opposite party carrier. THE Apex Court has held in its decision reported in Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., I (2000) CPJ 7 (SC)=II (2000) SLT 86=(2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 407 that where the insurer compensated the consignor for the loss of goods during transit and the consignor in turn assigned and transferred to the insurer all his rights against the carrier to recover the compensation paid for the loss, in spite of such assignment the insurer cannot be held to be a beneficiary of the services hired by the consignor from the carrier and that the insurer is not a consumer and, therefore, cannot maintain a complaint against the carrier of goods and that even impleading of the consignor as a co-complainant would not enable the insurer to maintain such a complaint. In view of the aforesaid specific ruling the Supreme Court, it follows that his complaint is not at all maintainable in law. THE insurer is not a consumer and the execution of a mere letter of subrogation cannot place him on par with the 1st complainant and that, therefore, there cannot be any deficiency in service with reference to the insurer and relating to the carrier and hence it follows that the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In such circumstances, we have to hold, following the decision of the Supreme Court, that the complaint is not maintainable despite the subrogation of the rights of the consignor. Hence, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the District Forum, Chennai (North). In view of the fact that the complaint has been rejected on the ground of question of law, we deem it necessary to order that the parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed.