- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 28.10.1992 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun allowing the complaint of United India Insurance Company Ltd. for the refund of Rs. 14,686.22 to be paid by the opposite party, M/s. Vijay Laxmi Transport Co., which amount was paid by the Insurance Company to the consignor.
(2.) THE facts of the case are very limited. The consignor has booked some articles on 12.10.1990 from Kanpur to Dehra Dun through Vijay Laxmi Transport Co. The consignment did not reach the destination. The consignment was insured. On the claim the Insurance Company paid a sum of Rs. 14,686.22 to the consignor and it filed the complaint before the learned Forum for the indemnification of this amount from the transport company, who was actually deficient in service and has lost the articles.
(3.) THE learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them allowed the complaint, against which order the present appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. Before the learned Forum also, there was a dispute that this is not a consumer dispute and the complaint should not have been filed. Before the learned Forum, on the strength of the ruling New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Green Transport,1991 2 CPJ 1 the learned Forum held that the complaint could have been filed before the Consumer Forum. Here in this appeal as well, the same question was raised. Now it is settled principle of law as pronounced by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the ruling Savani Road Lines V. Sundaram Textiles Ltd., 2001 AIR(SC) 2630 that Insurance Company is the assignee. It was not beneficiary of services hired by consumer from carrier. Insurance Company is not a consumer vis -a -vis the carrier. It has been specifically held on the strength of the ruling New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. B.N. Sainani, 1997 AIR(SCW) 2956that assignee of a mere right to sue for the loss cannot be held to be beneficiary of any service within the meaning of the definition "consumer". In this ruling it has been held that such an assignee cannot file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act but can file a civil suit in the Civil Court for the recovery of the loss. It has been held that the complaint by such assignee would not be maintainable. The same decision has been given in the ruling Oberai Forwarding Agency V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000 1 CPJ 7 It was specifically held in this ruling : "Consignor executed letter of subrogation in favour of the Insurance Company, the first respondent. Its operative portion may be broken up into two, namely, (i) "we hereby assign, transfer and abandon to you all our rights against the Railway Administration and Transport Carriers or other persons whatsoever, cause or arising by reason of the said damage or loss and grant you full power to take and use all lawful ways and means in your own name and otherwise at your risk and expense to recover the claim for the said damage or loss"; and (ii) "we hereby subrogate to you the same rights as we have in consequence of or arising from the said loss or damage". Therefore, all that was assigned and transferred by the consignor to the Insurance Company, the first respondent has the right to recover compensation for the loss. There was no question of the Insurance Company - first respondent being a beneficiary of the service that the consignor had hired from the Railway Administration Road Transport Carriers -appellant. That service, namely, the transportation of the consignment, had already been availed of by the consignor and in the course of it the consignment had been lost. The Insurance Company - first respondent, therefore, was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and was, therefore, not entitled to maintain the complaint. By reason of the transfer and assignment of all the rights of the consignor in the Insurance Company s - first respondent s favour, the consignor retained no right to recover compensation for the loss of the consignment. The addition of the consignor to the complaint as a co -complainant did not, therefore, make the complaint maintainable.";