This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s P S Roadlines against the order dated 09.04.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short ‘the State Commission’) in FA No. 955 of 2012.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner supplied the truck to AMD Industries for carrying the goods of the respondent No.1 from Ghaziabad to Fatehgarhsahib. Respondent No. 1 insured the goods with respondent No.2 under the marine cargo open policy. During the currency of the policy, the goods were delivered to respondent No. 1 however, out of 16 packets 3 packets were found wet damaged due to rainwater. The respondent No. 1 lodged the insurance claim with the respondent No. 2 insurance company and the respondent No. 2 paid the claim as assessed by the surveyor to respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 also took a letter of subrogation and power of attorney from respondent No. 1 in favor of respondent No. 2. Accordingly respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 jointly filed consumer complaint before the District Forum for recovery of the amount paid by respondent No. 2 as settlement of insurance claim to respondent No. 1. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party/ petitioner herein on the ground that it did not have any privity of contract with the complainants and that it had taken all the precautions to save the goods from rainwater and the whole truck was covered with tarpaulin. Even the surveyor has not found any deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the surveyor has also found no breach of any warranty. The District Forum vide its order dated 31.05.2012 dismissed the complaint. The complainants then preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide impugned order has allowed the complaint and ordered payment of Rs.86,436/- as assessed by the surveyor to the respondent No. 1 by the opposite party/ petitioner herein. 

3.      Hence, the present revision petition.

4.      None appeared on the day of argument from the side of the petitioner and therefore learned counsel for the respondents were heard. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 stated that the State Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the respondents as the petitioner was negligent in not properly transporting the goods of the respondent No.1 and three packets out of 16 packets were found damaged due to rainwater. The State Commission has only allowed the amount of Rs.86,436/- as assessed by the surveyor. Respondent No. two has obtained the letter of subrogation after paying the assessed amount to respondent No.1 as full and final settlement of the insurance claim of respondent No.1. It has been stated that there is no merit in the revision position and the same should be dismissed. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 also supported the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5.      In the absence of the petitioner, we  have  carefully perused the revision petition filed by the petitioner.  The petitioner has stated that he had fully covered the truck with tarpaulin and had taken all the precautions for safeguardi