Absence of privity of contract bars a party from claiming indemnity under an insurance policy not in their name, even if they argue assignment of rights.

ORDER

1. Consumer complaint No.21/2010 was originally filed by M/s Maja Merchandise Private Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 situate in tehsil Palwal, district Faridabad, Haryana. This company was later on taken over by M/s SPS Infratech Private Ltd. who has stepped into the shoes of the original complainant and accordingly an amended memo of parties was filed that has been accepted. This revision petition was accordingly admitted vide order dated 1st July, 2016. Notices were issued to the respondent - Insurance Company and Mr. K.K. Bhat learned counsel has opposed this revision petition at the outset contending that the petitioner has neither any insurable interest nor the former entity M/s Maja Merchandise Private Ltd. had any insurable interest inasmuch as the claim in essence was regarding an insurance policy, that covered, the transportation of the goods, which had been acquired by the consigner namely M/s Om Industry. The goods were despatched and M/s Maja Merchandise Private Ltd. was the consignee that had no privity of contract with the Insurance Company.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however urged that by virtue of the terms & conditions of the policy the consequences arising out of the policy, including indemnification, stood assigned to the complainant that has passed on to the present petitioner for the loss and damage that was admittedly caused to the goods that were loaded on the vehicle. Needless to mention that the goods that were subject matter of damage was a Grinding machine that was purchased by the original complainant M/s Maja Enterprises and was despatched by M/s Om Industries through transportation facilities of M/s Patel Roadways Ltd.

3. The District Commission vide order dated 27.01.2014 after assessing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the original complainant had stepped into the shoes of M/s Om Industries, the consigner and therefore by virtue of being a beneficiary as a consignee in terms of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 the complaint deserved to be allowed. Accordingly damages to the extent of Rs.2,45,250/- was awarded with interest @ 9% from the date of failing of the complaint till its realization. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards mental agony and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses. The findings recorded by the District Commission and the conclusions are extracted herein under: -

"We have heard Sh. Subhash Bainsia, counsel for the complainant, Sh. D.CDhankar, counsel for opposite party no.l and Sh. D.K.Gosain, counsel for opposite party no. 2 at length and also have gone through the case file carefully as well as written arguments.

There is no dispute as to the fact that complainant purchased "Precimax" Centreless grinding machine PMT-100 on 30.7.2006 vide Invoice No. 008 dated 27.10.2006 for Rs. 270608/- from M/s Om Industries, 2718, 4th phase, GIDC, Wadhwan City, Gujarat. It is also not disputed that the aforesaid machine was got insured by M/s Om Industries with opposite party no. 2 vide policy Ex.C- 3. It is ample dear from the perusal of policy Ex.C-3 that it cover all risk including SRCC Inland Transit (Rail or Road) A-Aii Risk. Admittedly, the complainant engaged the services of opposite party no. 1 to deliver the consignment of said machine from Sunder Nagar, Gujarat to Faridabad at the door step of the complainant company. But opposite party no. 1 mishandled the consignment and the said machine was damaged during the course of transit and same had to be sent back to its manufacturer for assessment of loss and repair as evident from Ex.C-10 tetter written by opposite party no. 1 to the complainant. Om Industries assessed loss and repair to the tune of Rs.245250/- vide letter dated 1.12.2006 written