TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD Vs. DAVANGERA COTTON MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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).

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.