S R R TANKER SERVICE Vs. KAMALA SOLVENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, since the lower Forum has narrated the facts of the case; it is not necessary to pen the facts leading to the filing of the complaint in extenso. An award has been passed in favour of the 2nd complainant who stands subrogated to the rights of the 1st complainant. The 1st complainant is the manufacturer of de-oiled meal and solvent oil and had insured with the 2nd complainant Insurance Company covering the transit risk while sending the oil to various consignors in India and in the course of the said business, the 1st complainant entrusted one tanker load of rice bran oil to the opposite party and consignment was accepted and due to the negligence of the opposite party, the tanker lorry carrying the consignment met with an accident and as a result, the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.2,75,764/-. The complainant later made a claim with the Insurer who made good the loss by settling the amount of Rs.2,61,068/- and in return the 1st complainant executed a letter of subrogation in favour of the Insurance Company and, therefore, the present complaint is laid by both the consignor as well as the Insurance Company praying for an award in favour of the Insurance Company who stands subrogated to the rights of the consignor.

(2.) The matter is governed by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court Oberai Forwarding Agency V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2001 1 CPJ 7 , wherein it has been held that where the insurer compensated the consingnor for the loss of goods during transit and the consignor in turn assigned and transferred to the insurer all his rights against the carrier to recover the compensation paid for the loss, in spite of such assignment, the insurer cannot be held to be a beneficiary of the services hired by the consignor from the carrier and that the insurer is not a consumer and, therefore, cannot maintain a complaint against the carrier of goods and it has been further held that the addition of the consignor as a co-complainant would not improve the position. Therefore, in view of the emphatic pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in 2000 (2) Supreme Court Cases 407, it follows that the action cannot be maintained by the complainants and, therefore, the Insurance Company not in the position of a consumer despite the subrogation, will not be entitled to any relief before the Consumer Fora.

(3.) Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the award passed by the District Forum is set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their costs throughout. Appeal allowed.