Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 27.05.2008 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case No. C-198 of 1999. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant-insurance company against Taj Mahal Hotel and New India Assurance Co. Limited, claiming a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- paid to the insured in settlement of his claim for the theft of a motor vehicle, which was parked at the opposite party No. 1-Hotel at the relevant time, the insured having subrogated the appellant-insurance company to make a claim and receive the insurance amount from the insurance company and/or the hotel where the vehicle in question was parked. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties primarily on the ground that the complainant-insurance company was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in any case, was a mere assignee of the claim and -3- therefore, it had no locus to institute the complaint for reimbursement of the amount paid by it to the insured from the opposite parties-Taj Mahal Hotel and New India Assurance Company Ltd. It would appear that the said objection raised on behalf of opposite parties weighed heavily with the State Commission and the State Commission taking into account the law as it was settled by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oberoi Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Company Limited I (2000) CPJ 7 (SC) that the appellant-complainant was neither a consumer nor had the requisite locus to file the complaint before the State Commission, dismissed the complaint on this short ground. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-insurance company has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. K. L. Nandwani, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Ms. Meenakshi Midha, learned counsel for the respondent and given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. 3. As noticed above, impugned order was passed mainly on the strength of Supreme Court decision in the case of Oberai -4- Forwarding Agency (Supra), which held the field at the relevant time. The said decision of the Supreme Court was a subject matter of challenge in some petitions filed in the Supreme Court. One such petition filed is titled as Economic Trasnport Organisation vs. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. reported in I (2010) CPJ 4 (SC) in which, decision was rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on a thorough examination of law on the subject reviewed decision in the case of Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Limited (supra) and held as under:- 24. We, therefore, answer the questions raised as follows: (a) The insurer, as subrogee, can file a complaint under the Act either in the name of the assured (as his attorney holder) or in the joint names of the assured and the insurer for recovery of the amount due from the service provider. The insurer may also request the assured to sue the wrong-doer (service provider). (b) Even if the letter of subrogation executed by the assured in favour of the insurer -5- contained in addition to the words of subrogation, any words of assignment, the complaint would be maintainable so long as the complaint is in the name of the assured and insurer figures in the complaint only as an attorney holder or subrogee of the assured. (c) The insurer cannot in its own name maintain a complaint before a Consumer Forum under the Act, even if its right is traced to the terms of a Letter of subrogation-cum-assignment executing by the assured. (d) Oberai is not good law insofar as it construes a Letter of subrogation-cum-assignment, as a pure and simple assignment. But to the extent it holds that an insurer alone cannot file a complaint under the Act, the decision is correct.” 4. Mr. K. L. Nandwani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of above decision of the Constitution Bench, the complainant-insurance company was well within its right to maintain the complaint, as a subrogee of the insured was entitled to maintain -6- the complaint before the State Commission. Learned counsel for the opposite parties does not dispute this legal proposition. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we have no manner of doubt that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission dismissing the complaint of the insurance company is hereby set aside. The complaint will be deemed to have been duly filed and maintainable before the State Commission and the same shall be tried and answered by the State Commission in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 25.10.2010 for receiving further directions in the matter. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to make any order about the cost in these proceedings.