2001 (7) TMI 1173 - SC - Companies Law

Insurance company not a consumer in carrier dispute. Must seek recovery in civil court, not consumer forum.

The court held that an insurance company, acting through subrogation, cannot be considered a consumer in relation to a carrier for goods transportation. ... Whether an insurance company is a consumer vis-a-vis the appellant, and as such, consumer can file a complaint before the consumer forum? Held that:- Appeal allowed. It is not necessary to decide whether a complaint would be maintainable, if there was merely subrogation. The main terms of the letter of subrogation in this case are identical to the letter of subrogation in Oberai Forwarding Agency’s case (2000 (2) TMI 791 - SUPREME COURT). On such terms, it has been held that it is an assignment. As it is assignment, the principles laid down in the above mentioned cases apply, and the complaint would not be maintainable. However, toclarify that it will be open for the insurance company to file a claim for recovery of the amounts in a civil court. Issues:Whether an insurance company is a consumer vis-a-vis the appellant, and if the consumer can file a complaint before the consumer forum.Analysis:The judgment deals with an appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The case involved the transportation of goods by the appellant for the first respondent, who had insured the goods with the second respondent. The goods were not delivered, leading to a claim by the first respondent. The second respondent settled the claim and filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The forum directed the appellant to pay the claimed amount with interest, which was challenged in a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The main issue raised was whether an insurance company is considered a consumer in relation to the appellant and if such a consumer can file a complaint before the consumer forum.The judgment cited previous cases to establish the legal principles applicable in such situations. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. B.N. Sainani, the court held that an assignee of the right to sue for loss cannot be considered a beneficiary of services under the definition of 'consumer.' It was determined that such an assignee cannot file a complaint under the Act but must resort to a civil court for recovery. Similarly, in the case of Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., it was held that an insurer compensating for loss of goods during transit was not a beneficiary of the services and therefore could not maintain a complaint against the carrier. Even adding the consignor as a co-complainant did not enable the insurer to file a complaint. The terms of the 'letter of subrogation' were crucial in determining the nature of the relationship between the parties.The appellant argued that in the absence of an assignment but with mere subrogation, the principles from the aforementioned cases would not apply. It was contended that on subrogation, the insurance company would act on behalf of the consumer. However, the court found that the terms of the letter of subrogation in the present case were akin to those in Oberai Forwarding Agency's case, which were deemed as an assignment. Consequently, the court held that the principles from the previous cases applied, and the complaint by the insurance company was not maintainable. The judgment clarified that the insurance company could pursue recovery through a civil court. As a result, the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.