TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/s. Transport Corporation of India has come up in appeal against the order dated 20.9.1995 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar, whereby the complaint of the United India Insurance Company and M/s. Prakash Strips has been allowed with the direction that the United India Insurance Company shall be entitled to the reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 13,475.98 on account of the loss of consignment during transportation of goods from Jagadhri to Bhopal. According to complainant No. 2, i.e. M/s. Prakash Strips of Yamuna Nagar, they had booked three bundles of brass sheets on 30.11.1993 from Jagadhri in the name of the consignee M/s. Vikas Industries, Bhopal, by paying the requisite transportation charges to M/s. Transport Corporation of India. The goods were insured with the United India Insurance Company. Since the goods did not reach their destination, the non-delivery certificate was obtained and a sum of Rs. 13,475.98 was paid by the Insurance Company to M/s. Prakash Strips, for which the reimbursement is sought. .

IN their reply, the Transport Corporation has not denied the aforesaid facts, but contested the complaint on the plea of lack of relationship of "consumer" between the INsurance Company and the appellant-Transport Corporation. The learned District Consumer Forum did not agree with the plea raised by the appellant and accepted the complaint. In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Transport Corporation has vehemently contended that the complaint could be filed by complainant M/s. Prakash Strips and that too against the Insurance Company and not against the appellant-Transport Corporation. He has further argued that in any case the Insurance Company had no privity of contract with the appellant-Transport Corporation. Hence the complaint was not maintainble. We do not agree with the contentions of the learned Counsel. Firstly, M/s. Prakash Strips had got their goods insured with the United India Insurance Company and for the loss of the same they lodged their claim with the said Insurance Company and got the necessary insured amount. Therefore, they had no grievance surviving against the appellant-Transport Corporation, but the United India Insurance Company was certainly entitled on the principle of subrogation to have this reimbursement from M/s. Transport Corporation of India against whom negligence in the discharge of their duty and deficiency in service stood established. Therefore, it was not necessary that only M/s. Prakash Strips could file the complaint and not the Insurance Company. According to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the ''consumer'' includes not only the person who has hired or has availed of any services for consideration but ''any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised''. In the present case, the goods had been insured with the Insurance Company and though with the loss of the goods the impact was on the owner of the goods, i.e. M/s. Prakash Strips, but ultimately incidence was on the Insurance Company with whom the goods were insured and who had to pay for the same. Therefore, the complaint was certainly maintainable on behalf of the United India Insurance Company against the appellant Transport Corporation of India. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.