S.P. Bharucha, J.—The facts are set out only insofar as they are relevant to the two issues in this appeal, namely, whether the first respondent Insurance Company was subrogated to the rights of the second respondent consignor in respect of the lost consignment or whether it was the assignee of the rights of the second respondent in respect thereof, and, if the latter, whether it was a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, entitled to maintain a complaint thereunder.

2. The second respondent, through its agent, hired two trucks from M/s. Bhasin Goods Carriers of Bareilly to transport broken rice to Barpeta, Assam. According to the appellant, it was asked by M/s. Bhasin Goods Carriers and the second respondent’s agent only to settle the freight for the consignment, which it did. The trucks loaded with the consignment did not reach their destination and the consignment was lost.

3. The second respondent made a claim for the value of the consignment upon the first respondent, who had insured it, in the sum of Rs. 93,925.55. The claim was settled by the first respondent in the sum of Rs. 64,137/-, and that sum was paid to the second respondent.

4. Consequent upon the claim being settled, the second respondent executed in favour of the first respondent, a “Letter of Subrogation” on 15th June, 1992. It stated :

“In consideration of your paying to us the sum of Rs. 64137/- only say rupees sixty four thousand one hundred and thirty seven only in full settlement of our claim for non-delivery/shortage and damage under policy No. 2142140400015 Cert. No./decl. No. 269240001/54 and 55 issued by you all on the undermentioned goods, we hereby assign, transfer and abandon to you all our rights against the Railway Administration Road transport carriers or other persons whatsoever, caused or arising by reason of the said damage or loss and grant you full power to take and use all lawful ways and means in your own name and otherwise at your risk and expense to recover the claim for the said damage or loss and we hereby subrogate to you the same rights as we have in consequence of or arising from the said loss or damage.

And we hereby undertake and agree to make and execute at your expense all such further deeds, assignments and documents and to render you such assistance as you may reasonably require for the purpose of carrying out this agreement.”

On the same day the second respondent also executed in favour of the first respondent a Special Power of Attorney, inter alia, for the following purpose :

“To file suit in the Court of law against the Railway Adm. if necessary for the recovery of the claim moneys for the aforesaid claim, on our behalf and in our name and to give valid discharges and effectful receipt thereto.”

5. On 9th September, 1992 the first respondent filed against the appellant a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act in respect of the loss of the consignment wherein it stated that the second respondent had “assigned/transferred their rights to claim the amount from the O.P. in favour of the complainant by executing Letter of Subrogation and power of attorney in its favour.......... The complainant stands subrogated to the rights of M/s. M.S. Industries as consumer and is consumer under the law and the purview of the C.P. Act.” The appellant in its written statement contended that the first respondent was not a `consumer’ and had no right to file the complaint and that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act were not attracted. The complaint was thereafter amended and the second respondent was added as a co-complainant.

6. The District Forum, Shahjahanpur, in which the complaint was filed, allowed it and directed the appellant to pay the respondents the sum of Rs. 98,924.55 and interest. The appellant preferred an appeal before the State Forum. The appeal was dismissed, but the amount of compensation was reduced to Rs. 69,137/-. Against the order of the State Commission, a Revision Petition w