SUNDARAM TEXTILES LTD Vs. SAVANI ROADLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st complainant M/s. Sundaram Textiles Ltd. , entrusted to the opposite party M/s. Savani Road lines 125 cartons of 62s Polyster cotton yarn on 3.1.1996 at Nanguneri, Tamil Nadu for safe carriage and delivery at Itchalakaranji. According to the complainant the concerned bunch was not delivered at the godown of the 1st complainant at Itchalakaranji as instructed. The opposite party were reminded again about the non-delivery but there was no response. Finally the complainant wrote to the opposite party a letter dated 3.8.1996 requesting them to furnish a non-delivery certificate. This the opposite party complied with on 6.9.1996. Alongwith their letter of non-delivery certificate the 1st complainant had also lodged a complaint with the opposite party and reiterated the same on 17.10.1996 also so as to comply with Sec.10 of the Carriers Act. Subsequently the 1st complainant vide their letters dated 3.8.1996, and 17.10.1996 had demanded for the value of the consignment Rs.9,30,188/-. To this there was no response.

(2.) The said consignment had been insured with the 2nd complainant M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The 2nd complainant Insurance Company paid the said sum of Rs.9,30,188/- to the 1st complainant and got subrogated to the rights and titles of the 1st complainant who in turn agreed to initiate appropriate proceedings against the carriers to reimburse the amount that they had collected. A Power of Attorney was also given to the 2nd complainant. Thus on account of the negligence on the part of the opposite party carriers the complainants have suffered a loss of Rs.9,30,188/- being the value of the goods. On these allegations the complaint has been filed for an award of the said sum of Rs.9,30,188/- and interest thereon @ 12% p. a. besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- as damages in favour of the 2nd complainant.

(3.) The opposite party in their written version contend that the loss if any suffered by the complainant had been settled by the 2nd complainant and therefore the cause of action does not survive and the 1st complainant ceased to be a consumer to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The 2nd complainant having no privity contract with the opposite party it has no locus-standi to maintain the complaint. As such the complaint is not maintainable. It is further contended that the consignment was entrusted by the opposite party on 3.1.1996 to the Sub-contractor Khaja Roadlines for transport at Nanguneri to Itchalakaranji. This was to the knowledge of the 1st complainant. The opposite party received the message of non-delivery from the 1st complainant after a lapse of 7 months. Immediately the Divisional Manager of the 1st opposite party sprung into action and lodged a complaint with the Police at Tirunelveli. The matter is under investigation by the police. The 1st complainant prevailed upon the opposite party to issue a non-delivery certificate. The 2nd complainant cannot maintain the complaint under the principle of subrogation. The 1st complainant having had the relief is estopped from pleading to the contrary and pleading on behalf of the 2nd complainant. This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On these grounds, the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.