Case: Savani Roadlines Vs. Sundaram Textiles Ltd.

1. This Appeal is against an Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 11th March, 1999.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :The 1st Respondent had entrusted to the Appellant 125 cartoon of goods, of the value of Rs. 9,30,188/for transport from Nanguneri to Itchalkaranji. The goods were not delivered. The 1st Respondent had insured the goods with the 2nd Respondent . The 1st Respondent lodged a cliam with the 2nd Respondent for loss of goods. The 2nd Respondent settled the claim of 1st Respondent by paying a sum of Rs.The 2nd Respondent took a letter, which is termed as a "Letter of Subrogation, and a Special Power of Attorney". On the basis of this letter the 2nd Respondent filed a complaint before the State Consumer Redressal Forum. The 1st Respondent was also a party to this complaint. The State Consumer Redressal Forum by its Order dated 16th December, 1998 directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 9,30,188/with interest at 12% per annum.3. The Appellant filed a Revision before the National Consumer Redressal Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned Order dated 11th March, 1999. Hence this Appeal.4. The only question raised before us is whether an Insurance Company is a consumerthe Appellant and as such consumer can file a complaint before the Consumer Forum.5. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. B.N. Sainani reported in (1997) 6 SCC 383  : 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 446 (SC), this Court has held that assignee of a mere right to sue for the loss on account of short landing of goods cannot be regarded as any beneficiary of any service within the meaning of the definition "Consumer". It has been held that such assignee cannot file a complaint under the Act, but can file a suit in a Civil Court for recovery of the loss. It has been held that the complaint by such assignee would not be maintainable.6. In the case of Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 665 (SC) : (2000) 2 SCC 407 , it has been held that an insurer compensating the consignor for loss of goods during transit and having an assignment was not beneficiary of the services hired by the consignor from the carrier. It is held that an insurer was not a consumer and could not, therefore, maintain a complaint against the carrier of the goods. It is held that even the addition of the consignor as awould not enable the insurer to maintain such a complaint. In this Judgment the term of "Letter of Subrogation" (in that case) are also set out. The main terms are, more or less, identical to the terms of the "Letter of Subrogation" in the present case. On an interpretation of those terms this Court has held that such a "Letter of Subrogation" was in effect an assignment. This Court has held that the assignee was not a beneficiary of the service and was not a consumer. It is held that a complaint by the Insurance Company was not maintainable.

Reasoning: 8. In our view, it is not necessary to decide whether a complaint would be maintainable if there was merely subrogation. The main terms of the Letter of Subrogation in this case are identical to the Letter of Subrogation in Oberai Forwarding Agencys case. On such terms it has been held that it is an assignment. As it is an assignment the principles laid down in the above mentioned cases apply and the complaint would not be maintainable. We, however, clarify that it will be open for the Insurance Company to file a claim for recovery of the amounts in a Civil Court.