United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs CITIZEN CHEMICAL TRANSPORT CO.

THE above mentioned five appeals arise out of a common order dated 12.1.2000, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case Nos. 889/1997, 890/1997, 891/1997, 892/1997 and 893/1997, all entitled United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Citizen Chemical and Transport Company.

SINCE common questions of law and fact are involved in the above mentioned appeals the same with the consent of the parties have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellants had filed separate complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') stating therein that in each case M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, Hazira, had booked consignment, containing MEG, with the respondent for carriage from Hazira to Gulaothi. The said consignment was insured with appellant No. 1-United India Insurance Company Limited and the consignee of the said consignment was appellant No. 2-M/s. Jindal Polyester Limited. At the time of taking delivery appellant No. 2 noticed a shortage in the consignment and when the said fact was brought to the notice of respondent, the respondent issued a shortage certificate to the said effect. The appellant No. 2 thereafter lodged a claim for compensation on account of short delivery of goods with the respondent as well as appellant No. 1 Insurance Company. The appellant No. 1 settled the claim of the appellant No. 2, who in turn executed a letter of subrogation and a Special Power of Attorney in favour of the appellant No. 1, authorising the appellant No. 1 to recover the said amount from the respondent carrier. The appellant No. 1, therefore, filed separate complaints in respect of each consignment, before the District Forum, for the recovery of the amount paid to the appellant No. 2.

The respondent in its written statement/reply filed before the District Forum raised the preliminary objection, that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were not ''Consumers'' under the Act and, as such, were not entitled to any reief under the Act; that the letter of subrogation issued by appellant No. 2 in favour of the appellant No. 1 did not make the appellant No. 1 a ''Consumer'' qua the respondent in order to claim relief under the Act. On merits also the same defence was raised.

HOWEVER, the learned District Forum relying upon the decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in case Green Transport Company v. New India Assurance Company Limited, reported as II (1992) CPJ 349 (NC), held that the Insurance Company was not the person, who hired or availed of service or was the beneficiary of services rendered by the respondent and as such, was not a consumer and could not claim compensation under the Act. Furthermore, the complaints were signed only by an officer of the appellant No. 1/Insurance Company on behalf of both the appellant Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the complaints having not been filed by a consumer were not maintainable in law. Aggrieved from the impugned order the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have filed the present appeals before us against the above said common order. The short point in controversy before us in the present appeals is as to whether an Insurance Company can maintain a complaint under the Act, for compensation against the carrier, on the basis of letter of subrogation as well as Special Power of Attorney issued in its favour by either the consignor or the consignee, to whom the claim has been paid by it. This very question came up for consideration before the Hon''''ble Supreme Court in case - entitled Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported as I (2000) CPJ 7 (SC)=II (2000) SLT 86, wherein it was held : "Now, as is clear, the loss of the consignment had already occurred. All that was assigned and transferred by the second respondent to the first respondent was the right to recover compensation for the loss. There was no question of the first respondent being a beneficiary of the service that the second respondent had hired from the appellant. That service, namely, the transportation of the consignment, had already been availed of by the second respondent, and in the course of it the consignment had been lost. The first respondent, therefore, was not a ''consumer'' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, and was, therefore, not entitled to maintain the complaint."

(Emphasis supplied)

IN view of the proposition of law as laid down in the above decision we have no hesitation in holding that the appeals filed by the appellants, are not maintainable under the Act as the services of the carrier in this case had been availed of for consideration by M/s. Reliance INdustries Ltd., being the consignor of the goods, and appellant No. 2 being the consignee was the beneficiary of the same, but the complaints before the District Forum were filed by the INsurance Company/appellant No. 1 who had neither hired the services of the respondent herein, nor was the beneficiary of the said services. The letter of subrogation and Special Power of Attorney issued in its favour by the appellant No. 2 only entitled the appellant No. 1 INsurance Company to recover the amount of the claim, settled in favour of appellant No. 2, from the respondent in the appropriate Forum, but did not entitle it to claim compensation as a ''consumer'' under the Act. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders of the learned District Forum and as such the present appeals filed by the appellants, being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. However, we may make it specifically clear that the dismissal of this appeal will not create a bar for the appellant to seek its remedy in any other appropriate Forum, if so advised. Appeal dismissed.