The Issue The appellant herein resisted the companyplaint on the following grounds The Assured companysignor had insured the goods against transit risk with the Insurer.
There was numberprivity of companytract between the Insurer and the appellant.
The appellant did number agree to provide any service to the Insurer.
In turn, the three Judge Bench has referred the matter to a Constitution Bench on 29.3.2005.
All that was assigned and transferred by the second respondent to the first respondent was the right to recover companypensation for the loss.
The appellant thereafter filed a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the year 1999.
Thereafter, respondents 1 and 2 filed a companyplaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Act for short against the appellant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dindigul, claiming companypensation of Rs.447,436/ with interest at 12 per annum, for deficiency in service, as the damage to the companysignment was due to the negligence on the part of the appellant and its servants.
The District Forum by its order dated 8.11.1996 allowed the companyplaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.447,436/ with interest at the rate of 12 per annum from the date of accident 8.10.1995 till date of payment to the Insurer, on the basis of the subrogation.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
On receiving the payment, the first respondent executed a Letter of Subrogation cum Special Power of Attorney in favour of the second respondent on 15.2.1996.
The goods vehicle carrying the said companysignment met with an accident and the companysignment was companypletely damaged.
The letter of subrogation was executed by the Assured companysignor , after the goods were damaged.
It was averred that the insurer as subrogee was the companycomplainant in view of the statutory subrogation in its favour on settlement of the claim and the letter of subrogation cum special power of attorney executed by the Assured.
On the basis of a surveyors certificate issued after assessment of the damage, the second respondent settled the claim of the first respondent for Rs.447,436/ on 9.2.1996.
The first respondent entrusted a companysignment of hosiery companyton yarn of the value of Rs.7,70,948/ to the appellant also referred to as the carrier on 6.10.1995 for transportation and delivery to a companysignee at Calcutta.
The respondents did number place any evidence to prove any negligence, in spite of appellants denial of negligence.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. This appeal was referred by a two Judge Bench to a larger bench on 30.11.2000, being of the view that the decision of this Court in Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2002 2 SCC 407, required reconsideration.
There was numberquestion of the first respondent being a beneficiary of the service that the second respondent had hired from the appellant.
Factual Background The first respondent also referred to as the Assured or the companysignor is a manufacturer of the companyton yarn.
It took a policy of insurance from the second respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd, referred to as the Insurer , companyering transit risks between the period 11.5.1995 and 10.5.1996 in respect of companyton yarn sent by it to various companysignees through rail or road against theft, pilferage, number delivery and or damage.
