TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. vs DAVANGERA COTTON MILLS LTD.

THE facts leading to this Revision Petition are that a complaint was filed against the present petitioner by three complainants namely, The Davangera Cotton Mills Ltd., National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Channahyasda Cohatilal, Naya Bazar, Sivan (Bihar) (who were arrayed as complainants No. 1 to 3 respectively) for the recovery of Rs. 5,030/- with interest. It was alleged in the complaint that on 22.4.1989 complainant No. 1, Davangera Cotton Mills Ltd.booked a consignment of goods valued at Rs. 5,030.20 to complainant No. 3, Channahyasda Cohatilal and entrusted the goods to the Branch office of the present petitioner for transportation to Sivan, Bihar. The consignment was lost in transit. The second complainant i.e. the Insurance Company with whom the consignment was insured settled the claim of the 1st complainant. The 1st complainant issued a letter of subrogation in favour of the Insurance Company. As noticed above all the three complainants joined in filing the complaint against the transport company i.e. Revision Petitioner before District Forum Chitradurga (Karnataka).

THE opposite party i.e. the present petitioner contended before the District Forum that there was no privity of contract between complainant No. 2. i.e. the Insurance Company and the opposite party i.e. the Transport Company and therefore complainant No. 2 was not a consumer qua the petitioner and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. The District Forum held that the complaint was maintainable and the Forum had jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. Feeling aggrieved of that order the Transport Company filed Revision Petition before Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore. The State Commission passed a brief order holding that it did not find any illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the District Forum in passing the impugned order. Consequently the Revision Petition was dismissed. Still not being satisfied the Transport Company has come before us by way of this Revision Petition.

THE main ground of the petitioner is that the Insurance Company does not become consumer qua the Transport Company on the basis of letter of subrogation. Reliance was placed upon a decision of this Commission in F.A. No. 91 of 1991 titled Green Transport Co. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. decided on 25th May, 1992 in which this Commission has held that the third party/stranger cannot acquire by purchase or transfer inter vivos the right of action which a ''consumer'' might have and maintain a complaint before the District Forum in his name and the fact that the Insurer had acquired a right of subrogation or transfer of the right of action which the Insured had as against the transporter or it had been granted a special power of attorney would not in any way improve the position of the Insurance Company so far as proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act are concerned. We are of the opinion that the said decision is distinguishable as discussed below.

THE Insurance Company is not the sole complainant in the complaint petition filed before the District Forum. The consignment was entrusted by the 1st complainant for being transported and delivered to the 3rd Respondent at Sivan (Bihar). The freight was duly paid. The consignment was lost in transit. Therefore, as far as the 1st complainant and the 3rd complainant are concerned they are definitely consumers qua the transport company. The transport company is liable to indemnify either of them for the loss of the goods. Of course the claim of the consignor has been settled by the insurance company and the consignor has issued a letter of subrogation but that will not affect the rights of the 1st complainant and the 3rd complainant from claiming value of the goods from the transport company. It is an arrangement inter se between the complainants to request the Forum that to whom the amount should be paid. In our opinion the transport company cannot question the request of the complainants Nos. 1 and 3 where all the interested parties have joined in the complaint. It cannot be said that it is a champertious litigation. If the complaint had been filed by the Insurance Company alone on the basis of the letter of subrogation only then the transport company was entitled to say that the Insurance Company is not consumer qua them. In the light of the above discussions we do not find any force in the present petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 900/- as costs to the three Respondents in equal shares.