BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

 Date of filing :  26.02.2015

                                                                                         Date of Order : 20.08.2019

PRESENT:

 Shri. Cherian K. Kuraikose,                             President

 Shri. V.Ramachandran                                     Member  
 

                            CC.No.150/2015

                                   Between       

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

          There are 2 complainants in this case. The 1^st complainant is the New India Assurance Company Ltd. who had insured certain perishable articles owned by the 2^nd complainant through the opposite party- Railways.  During the course of transit, certain items were lost and the 1^st complainant complained that the insurer by virtue of Marine Cargo policy, had to pay
Rs. 23,460/- for obtaining the letter of subrogation from the 2^nd complainant. It is alleged that one bag of mace has been lost due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party- Railways.   The 1^st complainant seeks payment of Rs.23,460/- paid by them to the 1^st opposite party on the strength of the letter of subrogation issued by the 2^nd complainant in favour of the 1^st complainant.

2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties who appeared before the Forum after they setting aside the previous Ex-parte order and filed their version resisting the claim of the complainants contenting inter-alia that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ and that the subject matter does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  According to the opposite party, the claim of this nature can only be adjudicated by the Railway Claims Tribunal. 

3)      The evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidences which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A11 on the side of the complainant.  Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties produced any oral evidence.  The opposite parties did not produce any documentary evidence as well.

4)      The issues to be considered and decided in this case are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
2. If so, whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency in service so as to get the complainant compensated for?
3. Reliefs and costs?

5)      Issue Nos. (i) and (ii)

          The 1^st complainant is the New India Assurance Company, who by virtue of an insurance policy compensated the 2^nd complainant with respect to the monetary loss sustained by them in respect to the articles sent by them through the opposite parties.  The 1^st complainant steps into the shoes of the 2^nd complainant by virtue of Exbt. A1 original letter of subrogation and special Power of Attorney. The facts sought to be proved through Exbt.A2 Parcel way bill, Exbt. A2 original gate pass, Exbt. A4 purchase bill of the article are admitted by both parties and there is no quarrel with regard to the payment of sum by the 1^st complainant to the 2^nd complainant. The 1^st complainant on perusal of the Exbt. A8 Claim Form was satisfied that the property has been lost during transit and had adequately compensated to the 2^nd complainant. The payment for transportation was given to the 2^nd complainant and by virtue of a letter of subrogation, the 1^st opposite party who is doing a business of insurance in commercial scale cannot be assume the garb of a consumer to stake a claim before the Consumer Forum, for the simple reason that the 1^st complainant can by no stretch of imagination be considered as a ‘Consumer’ who had availed any service from the opposite party. The remedy for the 1^st complainant is elsewhere and not certainly before the Consumer Forum as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party- Railways as against the 1^st complainant. It is pertinent to note that the 2^nd complainant did not seek any reliefs from the Forum but the relief was sought only by the 1^st complainant who is not a ‘consumer’. Consequently, we find no cause of action for a consumer complaint in favour of the 1^st complainant and therefore the 1^st issue is find against the complainant.

Issue No. (iii)

Having found the issue No. (i) and (ii) against the complainants, we find issue No. (iii) against the complainant by dismissal of the complaint.

8)      In the result, the complaint is dismissed with no costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20^th day of August 2019.

                                                                                      Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

                                                APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:    Nil

Date of Despatch

          By Hand    ::

          By Post      ::

…................