SAVANI ROADLINES versus SUNDARAM TEXTILES LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 981 · Decided: 13-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SA V ANI ROADLINES 
A 
v. 
SUNDARAM TEXTILES LTD. AND ANR. 
JULY 13, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Consumer Protection Act, /986-S.2(b) and (d) 
Consumer-Subrogation-Carrier-Non-delivery of goods-Loss ofi 
goods settled by Insurance Company-Insurance Company obtaining letter C 
of subrogation from consignor-Complaint by Insurance Company against 
carrier-Allowed-Validity of-Held, letter of subrogation was an 
assignment-Assignee not a beneficiary of the service and was not a 
Consumer-Thus, complaint by Insurance Company, not maintainable-
However, it is open to the Insurance Company to file claim for recovery in D 
a Civil Court. 
Respondent No. 1 consigned certain goods to appellant for transportation. 
The said goods were not delivered. Respondent no. 1 claimed loss of goods 
from respondent no. 2-lnsurance Company. The Insurance Company settled 
the claim and obtained "Letter of Subrogation, and a Special Power ofi E 
Attorney". Thereafter, on the basis of said letter respondent no. 2-Insurance 
Company filed a claim against appellant-Carrier before the State Consumer 
Redressal Forum, which was allowed. Appellant unsuccessfully filed a Revision 
before the National Consumer Commission. Hence the present appeal. · 
The issue in the present appeal was whether respondent No. 2- F 
Insurance Company was a Consumer viz-a-viz the appellant and as such can 
file a complaint before the Consumer Forum. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : Respondent no. 2-Insurance Company is not entitled to maintain G 
a complaint against appellant before the Consumer Forum. The main terms 
of the letter of Subrogation are in effect assignment only and since the 
assignee was not a beneficiary of the service, it was not a consumer. However; 
. it will be open for the Insurance Company to file a claim for recovery of the 
amount of a Civil Court. [982-H; 983-H; 984-A] 
981 
H' 
'982 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. B.N. Sainani, (1997] 6 SCC 383 
..
and Oberoi Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000f 2 
}-' 
sec 407' relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7349 of 
2000. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.1999 of the National Consumers 
Disputes Reddressal Commission, New Delhi .. 
~ 
M.N. Krishnamani, Alok Sangwan, Somayjit Pasi, S. Srinivasan and 
c 
V. Sudeer for the Appellant. 
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, A.K. Raina and Anil Kumar Jha for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
S.N. V ARIA VA, J. This Appeal is against and Order of the National 
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 11th March, 1999 . 
... 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 
E 
The 1st Respondent had entrusted to the Appellant 125 carton of 
goods, of the value of Rs. 9,30, 188 for transport from Nanguneri to Itchalkaranji 
the goods were not delivered. 'The 1st Respondent had insured the goods 
with the 2nd Respondent. The 1st· Respondent lodged a claim with the 2nd 
Respondent for ·loss of goods. The 2nd Respondent settled the claim of 1st 
Respondent by paying a sum of Rs. 9,30,188. The 2nd Respondent took a 
~: 
F letter, which is tenned as a "Letter of Subrogation, and a Special Power of 
Attorney". On the basis of this letter the 2nd Respondent filed a complaint 
before the State Consumer Redressal Forum. The 1st Respondent was also a 
party to this complaint. The State Consumer Redressal F orufn by its Order 
dated 16th December, 1998 directed the Appellant to pay a sum oflls. 9,30,188 
with interest at 12% per annum. 
G 
.. 
The Appellant filed a Revision before the National 
1Co~sull?-er Redressal 
Commission which has been dismissed by th~ impugned Order· dated 11th 
March, 1999. Hence this Appeal. 
"-
H 
The only question raised .~efore us is whether an Insurance Company 
is a consumer viz-a-viz the Appellant and as such consumer can file a complaint 
j 
SAVANI ROADLINES v. SUNDARAM TEXTILES LTD. [VARIAY/!'.,J.) 983 
before the Consumer Forum. 
In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. B.N. Sainani, 
reported in [ 1997] 6 SCC 383, this Court has held that assignee of a mere right 
to sue for the loss on account of short landing of goods cannot be regarded 
A 
as any beneficiary of any service within the meaning of the definition 
"Consumer". It has been held that such assignee cannot file a complaint B 
under the Act, but can file a suit in a Civil Court for recovery of the loss. It 
has 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.