EAST INDIA TRANSPORT AGENCY Vs. DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act') against the Order dtd. 19/12/2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra ('the State Commission'), in CC No. 335 of 2012 wherein the Complaint of the Complainants (Respondents herein) was partly allowed.

(2.) For clarity and consistency, the parties involved in this Appeal will be referred to as per the original Complaint before the learned State Commission. Complainant No. 1/Respondent No. 1, "Dhariwal Industries," is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in business activities. Complainant No. 2/ Respondent No. 2, 'Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,' is an insurance company. Meanwhile, The OP/Appellant - 'East India Transport Agency' is involved in the business of Carriage of goods by road for hire and reward as a common carrier.

(3.) Brief facts, as per Complainant No. 1, are that they were engaged by the OP for carriage and safe delivery of a consignment of 350 cartons of Gutkha to their buyers in Kolhapur. The consignment, dispatched under supplier's invoices 730 and 731 dtd. 6/12/2010 was accepted by the OP and booked under Lorry Receipt No. 5559178 on the same date. However, the consignment failed to reach the buyers, leading Complainant No. 1 to contact Complainant No. 2, the insurance company. Cargo tracers were appointed to locate the consignment, and the OP informed them that it was stolen while in their custody. Despite confirmation of loss vide a non-delivery certificate dtd. 16/12/2010, the OP failed to reimburse the consignment's value. As the consignment was in the OP's custody, Complainant No. 1, the consignor/owner/insured party, suffered loss due to non-delivery. Consequently, Complainant No. 1 lodged a monetary claim with OP. Further, Complainant No. 1 had obtained a Marine Insurance Policy from Complainant No. 2 to cover the risk to the consignment during transit. Consequently, Complainant No. 2 settled the claim of Complainant No. 1 under the insurance policy for a sum of Rs.28,72,142.00 as full and final settlement. Subsequently, Complainant No. 1, upon receiving payment from Complainant No. 2, executed a Letter of Subrogation and Special Power of Attorney in favor of Complainant No. 2 for Rs.28,72,142.00. This subrogation granted Complainant No. 2 all the rights and remedies available to Complainant No. 1. As a result, Complainant No. 2, having indemnified Complainant No. 1, is entitled to claim from the OP for the amount paid.