THAKKAR BALDEVBHAI KESHAVLAL Vs. MOHANBHAI S PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondents had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the services of the petitioner were hired for transportation of RBD Palmoline Oil on 25. 8. 1997 for transportation of oil from Kandla to Pathankot in a 'lorry-tanker' belonging to the petitioner. This tanker met with an accident on 27. 8. 1997. Since the goods were under cover of Insurance with the first respondent-Insurance Company, the matter was reported to the insurer who appointed a surveyor and after following due procedure settled the claim at Rs. 2,08,696 after obtaining a letter of 'subrogation' and 'assignment'. The matter was also taken up with the petitioner but since the claim was not settled by the petitioner, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint. An appeal filed by the respondents before the State Commission was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 2,08,896, i. e. , the amount of settlement between the first and second respondents along with interest @ 18% p. a. from 15. 9. 98 till payment along with cost of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us.

(3.) WE heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and after perusing the material on record we find that there is no disputing the fact that complaint has been filed jointly by the insurers and the original consignor namely, New India Assurance Co. and M/s. Pioneer Agro Extracts Ltd. It is also not in dispute that the amount of Rs. 2,08,896 has already been paid by the first respondent to the second respondent after obtaining letter of 'subrogation' and 'assignment'. After hearing the parties and perusal of material on record we are of the view that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Company, I (2000) CPJ 7 (SC)=ii (2000) SLT 86=2000 (2) SCC 407. There is no disputing the fact that the payment was made by the Insurance Company to the consignee after executing the letter of 'subrogation' and 'assignment' by the consignor in favour of the insurer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to go into the whole question of 'subrogation' and 'assignment' in the cited judgment and their observations in this regard are as follows :