Appellant which was the Opposite Party No.4 before the State Commission has filed this Appeal against the judgment and order  dated  23.06.08   passed  by  the  State Consumer Disputes  Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint Case No. 4/07 whereby the State Commission dismissing the complaint against the Appellant reserved the liberty to the Respondent Insurance Company to proceed against them and their agents for recovery of the sum payable by them to the Complainant.

FACTS:-

Complainant/Respondent No.4 filed a complaint before the State Commission against the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 Insurance Company and the Opposite Party No.4 – Air Carrier/Appellant herein. The controversy between the parties was regarding a shipment of precious and semi-precious stones of the value of US$ 47,605.83 (equivalent to Indian Currency of Rs.22,50,000/-) which was sent to M/s. Brochier Vulliod, France by the Respondent No.4/Complainant through M/s. Aargus Global Logistic Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur agent of the Appellant Air Carrier. The said shipment was insured with the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Insurance Company.  However, the said shipment never reached to its destination and on enquiry made from the Appellant, it was revealed that the said shipment was misplaced enroute as per information received from the Zurich Office.  Despite the efforts being made, Appellant could not trace the shipment. Complainant lodged a claim with the Respondent Insurance Company which was not settled. Complainant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission seeking a direction to the Respondent Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.33,73,750/-.

Complainant had settled the claim with the Appellant. Appellant had paid a sum of Rs.1,298/- to the Complainant in full and final settlement of the claim against them.  In the complaint, the Appellant was arrayed as Opposite Party No.4 as a proforma party. No relief was sought against the Appellant.  State Commission allowed the complaint against the Respondent Insurance Company and directed it to pay a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- to the Complainant as value of the goods in question and sum insured under the insurance policy along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint, i.e. 21.02.07 till payment.  Rs.20,000/- were awarded as costs.  Complaint against the Appellant was dismissed.  However, the State Commission made the following observations in its order:-

“        However, it is made clear that the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 Insurance Company are free to proceed against the Carriers (Opposite Party No.4) and their agent for recovery of the sum payable by them to the complainant-insured, in accordance with the law and condition no. 13.2 of the policy and with these observations and directions, the counter claim of the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 Insurance Company stands disposed of accordingly. “

          Respondent Insurance Company has accepted the order passed by the State Commission and did not file any appeal. Appellant which was the Opposite Party No.4 before the State Commission has filed the present appeal alleging that since the Appellant had been arrayed as proforma party in the complaint and had already settled the claim with the Complainant, State Commission has erred in reserving liberty with the Respondent Insurance Company to proceed against them and their agent for recovery of the sum payable by them to the Complainant.

          We have heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the Appellant and the Respondent Insurance Company at some length.  None is present on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent No.4.

          Appellant was arrayed as proforma party. State Commission in its order recorded a finding that the Complainant had settled the claim with the Appellant on payment of Rs.1,298/-.  State Commission dismissed the complaint against the Appellant. The only grievance of the Appellant is that in view of the fact that he had been shown as proforma party and had already settled the claim with the Complainant, State Commission has erred in reserving liberty with the Respondent Insurance Company to proceed against them or their agent for recovery of the sum payable by them to the Complainant.  The relief claimed by the Appellant in this appeal cannot be granted as the complaint against them has already been dismissed by the State Commission. No relief has been granted against them.  The plea taken by the Appellant that since it had already settled the claim with the Complainant, the Respondent Insurance Company could not be granted liberty to proceed against them, cannot be accepted at this stage. As and when the Respondent Insurance Company initiates proceedings for recovery of the amount from the Appellant, it would be open for the Appellant to raise the defence that the Insurance Company cannot proceed against them as the dispute between the Appellant and the Complainant had already been settled. With these observations, the First Appeal is dismissed.  No order as to costs