The second respondent, through its agent, hired two trucks from M s. Bhasin Goods Carriers of Bareilly to transport broken rice to Barpeta, Assam.
On 9th September, 1992 the first respondent filed against the appellant a companyplaint under the Consumer Protection Act in respect of the loss of the companysignment wherein it stated that the second respondent had assigned transferred their rights to claim the amount from the O.P. in favour of the companyplainant by executing Letter of Subrogation and power of attorney in it favour.
The trucks loaded with the companysignment did number reach their destination and the companysignment was lost.
The appellant preferred an appeal before the State Forum.
The companyplaint was thereafter amended and the second respondent was added as a companycomplainant.
On the same day the second respondent also executed in favour of the first respondent a Special Power of Attorney, inter alia for the following purpose To file suit in the companyrt of law against the Railways Adm. if necessary for the recovery of the claim moneys for the afore said claim, on our behalf and in our name and to give valid discharges and effectful receipt thereto.
And we hereby undertake and agree to make and execute at your expense all such further deeds, assignments and documents and to render you such assistance as you may reasonably require for the purpose of carrying out this agreement.
The claim was settled by the first respondent in the sum of Rs.64,137/ , and that sum was paid to the second respondent.
Thus, by the first clause there was an assignment in favour of the first respondent.
And the assignee first respondent was number a companysumer.
It stated In companysideration of your paying to us the sum of Rs.64137/ only say Rupees Sixty four thousand one hundred and thirty seven only in full settlement of our claim for number delivery shortage damage under policy No.2142140400015 Cert.
No.269240001/54 55 issued by you all on the undermentioned goods, we hereby assign, transfer and abandon to you all our rights against the Railway Administration Road transport carriers or other persons whatsoever, caused or arising by reason of the said damage or loss and grant you full power to take and use all lawful ways and means in your own name and otherwise at your risk and expense to recover the claim for the said damage or loss and we hereby subrogate to you the same rights as we have in companysequence of or arising from the said loss or damage.
Even by the second clause, therefore, there was an assignment in favour of the first respondent.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the document quoted above, though styled Letter of Subrogation, was an assignment by the second respondent of its rights to the first respondent.
The second clause, undoubtedly, used the word subrogate, but it companyferred upon the first respondent the same rights that the second respondent had in companysequence of or arising from the said loss or damage, which meant that the transfer was number limited to the quantum paid by the first respondent to the second respondent but encompassed all the companypensation for the loss.
Against the order of the State Commission, a Revision Petition was filed before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.
The District Forum, Shahjahanpur, in which the companyplaint was filed, allowed it and directed the appellant to pay to the respondents the sum of Rs.98,924.55 and interest.
The appeal was dismissed, but the amount of companypensation was reduced to Rs.69,137/ .
The companyplainant stands subrogated to the rights of M s. S. Industries as companysumer and is companysumer under the law and the purview of the C.P. Act The appellant in its written statement companytended that the first respondent was number a companysumer and had numberright to file the companyplaint and that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act were number attracted.
Consequent upon the claim being settled, the second respondent executed in favour of the first respondent, a Letter of Subrogation on 15th June, 1992.
According to the appellant, it was asked by M s. Bhasin Goods Carriers and the second respondents agent only to settle the freight for the companysignment, which it did.
Upon such assignment, the assignor second respondent had numberright left.
For the first respondent, on the other hand, it was submitted that the document was indeed a letter of subrogation and that, therefore, the first respondent and the second respondent were entitled to maintain the companyplaint.
Thirdly, the first respondent would number be entitled to take steps to recover the loss in its own name the steps for recovery would have to be taken in the name of the second respondent.
The second respondent made a claim for the value of the companysignment upon the first respondent, who had insured it, in the sum of Rs.93,925.55.
BHARUCHA, J. The facts are set out only in so far as they are relevant to the two issues in this appeal, namely, whether the first respondent insurance companypany was subrogated to the rights of the second respondent companysignor in respect of the lost companysignment or whether it was the assignee of the rights of the second respondent in respect thereof and, if the latter, whether it was a companysumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, entitled to maintain a companyplaint thereunder.
The appellant impugns the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by special leave.
The same was dismissed and the appellant was directed to pay to the respondents the sum of Rs.98,924.55 as companypensation.
