Back
2010(2) CPR 3 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
Bharat Diesels —Petitioner
versus
Pratap Singh and Another —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 3027 of 2003
Decided on 29.7.2009
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Ms. Deepa Chacko and Mr. Suchil Kumar Singh, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(d)—Consumer—Letter styled as “Subrogation” in fact assignment of rights by the insured in favour of the Insurance Company—Insurer not a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. (Para 14)
(ii) Words and Phrases—Subrogation and assignment—Rights of subrogation—Vests by operation of law—Assignment requires an agreement—Insurer exercising Right of Subrogation against third parties—Must do so in the name of the assured—In case of assignment he can proceed to enforce the right in his own name. (Para 15, 16)
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g) Insurance claim—Tractor stolen from service centre—Insured claimed Rs. 2,40.000/- Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 190,000/- Which was paid by the insurer to Claimant—Insurer and claimant proceeded against the petitioner from whose premises it was lost—Deducting depreciation of Rs. 13,000/-, Complainants held entitled to recover only 40,000/. (Paras 18, 19)
Ashok Bhan, President—M/s. Bharat Diesels-petitioner herein, who was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (herein referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) has filed the present Revision Petition.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:-
Complainants -Pratap Singh and Sukhveer Singh respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein purchased a Mahendra Tractor bearing registration no. UP-10C-15 78 on 18.11.1997 for Rs.2,43,000/- from the petitioner. The tractor was duly insured by the complainants with Oriental Insurance Company Limited (which was Complainant no.3 before the District Forum) for a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-. Complainants took the tractor for servicing to the petitioner premises on 01.06.1999. According to the complainants /respondents, tractor was stolen whereas according to the petitioner, tractor had been taken away by a person who had come with the complainant after the service was over. Complainants lodged their claim with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited who appointed a Surveyor. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,90,000 against the total insured value of Rs. 2,40,000/- Complainants issued a letter of subrogation in favour of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited to the following effect:
“Letter of Subrogation
I hereby acknowledge receipt of the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rs. one lakh ninety thousand) which you have paid to me and I/we accept in full and final settlement of my/our claim in respect of our loss on 06.01.1999 under Policy No.31/99/01392 for Rs.2,40,000/ -.
Description of interest Tractor’s Comprehensive Insurance Policy.
I/we have place on record that by virtue of such payment the underwriters concerned become subrogated to all my/our rights and remedies in and in respect matter insured in accordance with the laws governing the Contract Insurance. I/we also record that they have authority to use my names to the extent necessary effectively to exercise all or any of such rights and remedies, that I/we will furnish them with any assistance they may reasonably require of me when exercising such rights and remedies, whilst on their party, they will indemnify me/us against liability for costs, charges and expenses
arising in connection with any proceedings which they may take in my/our name/s in the exercise of such rights and remedies.”
3 After the receipt of sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- as aforementioned, the complainants/respondents along with Oriental Insurance Company Limited, filed the present Complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,43,000/- being the value of the tractor with 18% interest. Rs. 50,000/- were claimed towards damages and loss of earning.
4. District Forum, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidences produced by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to either deliver tractor no. UP-10C-1578, which had been stolen from its premises or to pay its value, i.e., Rs. 2,43,000/- along with interest @ 10% from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 16.11.1999. Rs. 20,000/- were awarded as damages and Rs. 5,000/- as costs.
5. Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, Uttaranchal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short), which has been dismissed by the impugned Order with the modification that the complaint filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited was not maintainable and the complaint to that extent would be deemed to be dismissed but the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent nos.1 and 2 was held to be maintainable and the Order of the District Forum was upheld with regard to the rights of the complainant/ respondent nos. 1and 2.
6. Being aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
7. Shri Sukumar Pattjoshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends t
