Thirumagal Mills Ltd. vs A.T.O. (I) PVT. LTD.

WE may now advert to refer to such of those relevant facts as are absolutely essential for the disposal of these original petitions in the light of the law as evolved by the Apex Court of this country in the decision reported in Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Asurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., I (2000) CPJ 7 (SC)=II (2000) SLT 86=2000 (1) CTC 556.

IN all these actions, the INsurance Company concerned figured alongwith the insured as complainants. The INsurance Company allowed the claims as made against them by the insured and also got a letter of subrogation for the recovery of the amounts paid by them to the assured from the opposite party/s. The individual opposite parties in all these actions have been served and appearance on their behalf had also been made by learned Counsel representing them. All the actions have become ripe for enquiry. Learned Counsel representing both sides, drew our attention, during the course of enquiry, to the decision of the Supreme Court in Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra). One vexed question that came up for consideration in the case before the Supreme Court was as to wehther the Insurance Company which has been assigned the rights of a consignor in respect of lost consignment is entitled to maintain a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short, "the Act"]. The Supreme Court, on an elaborate consideration of the issue involved, ultimately came to the conclusion that the assignment did not make the Insurance Company a "beneficiary" of service rendered by the carrier and consequently the Insurance Company is not a consumer. The Supreme Court further stated that the consignor not having retained any right, is also not entitled to maintain the complaint as a co-complainant.

The Supreme Court rendered the judgment in the aforesaid case on 1.2.2000.

ALL these original petitions as above had been filed long before the delivery of the judgment by the Supreme Court as above. Subsequent to the delivery of the judgment by the Supreme Court in the said decision, it goes without saying that the subrogee Insurance Company cannot be construed as a consumer-beneficiary to maintain an action before the FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short, "the Act"]. A co-complainant cannot also maintain an action before the consumer FORA inasmuch as they had assigned all his rights in favour of the Insurance Company. In such state of affairs, all the complaints in the original actions above, deserve to be dismissed and we accordingly do so. It is however open to the aggrieved complainants to resort to institute proceedings before a competent Civil Forum for appropriate reliefs if they are so advised to do so. Thus all the complaints, viz., O.P. Nos. 111, 152, 205 and 206 of 1997 and O.P. Nos. 9, 28, 92, 217 and 219 of 1998 and O.P. 93/1999 are dismissed. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases. O.Ps. dismissed.