( 1 ) M/s Takur Sadekar and Company Limited, Nizamabad, (for short the consignor) consigned 454 bags of beedies through the 1st appellant, M/s. Gujrath Andhra Road Carriers Transport contractors, (for short "the appellant")for delivery at Sunderao (Rajasthan), on 30-7-1980. The appellant accepted the consignment and issued LRGAR C. No 87, dated 30-7-1980. The consignor insured the goods with the respondent herein. On 4-8-1980, the goods reached the destination, through a truck belonging to the appellant. 17 bags of the consignment were said to have been damaged, due to rain. The consignor made a claim with the respondent. An exercise of assessment for the damage was undertaken, and a sum of rs. 8,608=13 ps. was paid by the respondent, to the consignor. ( 2 ) ON the basis of a letter of subrogation and Power of Attorney, issued to it, by the consignor, the respondent filed o. S. No. 253 of 1983 in the Court of principal District Munsif, Nizamabad, against the appellant and its driver, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,694 = 13 ps. together with 12% interest per annum It was pleaded that the damage to the goods occurred, on account of the negligence on the part of the appellant and that it is liable to pay the value of the damaged goods. ( 3 ) THE driver of the vehicle remained ex parte. The suit was contested by the appellant alone. The entrustment of the goods by the consignor, to the appellant, for transporting the same to Rajasthan, was admitted. It was pleaded that all possible precautions were taken, to protect the goods, and that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. It was also alleged that the appellant never acknowledged its liability for the damage of the goods. The appellant pleaded its ignorance, as to the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance between the consignor and the respondent, and ultimately it was urged that the suit is not maintainable at the instance of the respondent. Non-compliance with section 10 of the Carries Act (for short the Act) was also complained of. ( 4 ) THROUGH its judgment dated 29/12/1998, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A. S. No. 17 of 1989 in the Court of District Judge, at nizamabad. Non-compliance with section 10 of the Carries Act (for short the Act) was also complained of. ( 4 ) THROUGH its judgment dated 29/12/1998, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A. S. No. 17 of 1989 in the Court of District Judge, at nizamabad. During the pendency of the appeal, the Managing Director of the appellant died, and his legal representatives were brought on record. The appeal was dismissed on 11/6/1993. Hence, this second appeal. ( 5 ) SN Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the suit filed by the respondent was not maintainable, since there did not exist any privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent. He contends that mere subrogation of rights by the consignor, in favour of the respondent, does not clothe the latter, with the right to maintain a suit, by itself. Learned Counsel further points out that the so-called assessment of damage was undertaken without reference to the appellant, and in that view of the matter, there did not exist any enforceable claim in the respondent, against the appellant. He relied upon certain precedents, in support of his contention. ( 6 ) MRS. S. A. V. RATNAM, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that once the damage to the goods of the consignor was not disputed, the appellant is under obligation, to compensate for the same. She contends that by paying the cost of the damaged goods, the respondent had stepped into the shoes of the consignor, and the suit was maintainable in law. She had also relied on certain decided cases. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs. 8,694 = 13 ps. with interest at 12% per annum from the defendants ? 2. Whether this Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? 3. Whether notice under Section 10 of carriers Act was given by the plaintiff? the Lower Appellate Court framed three points, virtually replicating the three issues, framed by the trial Court. ( 8 ) THE respondent examined PWs. 1 and 2 and filed Exs. A-1 to A-10. Important among them is Ex. A-8, the letter of subrogation and special Power of Attorney, executed by the consignor, in favour of the respondent. On behalf of the appellant, dws. ( 8 ) THE respondent examined PWs. 1 and 2 and filed Exs. A-1 to A-10. Important among them is Ex. A-8, the letter of subrogation and special Power of Attorney, executed by the consignor, in favour of the respondent. On behalf of the appellant, dws. 1 and 2 were examined and no documents were filed. ( 9 ) THE second issue related to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court, to entertain the suit. Since the goods were admittedly consigned at Nizamabad, both the Courts answered the issue in favour of the respondent, and this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same. ( 10 ) THE third issue related to the issuance of notice under Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act mandates that before any proceedings are initiated against the carrier, the consignor must issue a notice within six months from the date of noticing the damage to the goods. Failure to issue Section 10 notice, would be fatal to the proceedings. In the instant case, the consignor addressed a letter dated 10/8/1980, marked as Ex. A-2, to the appellant, pointing out the damage to the goods. The appellant in turn, issued reply, on 12/8/1980, marked as Ex. A-3. The respondent is said to have paid certain amount towards damage to the goods, on 8/7/1983, as insurer, much after the correspondence between the consignor and the appellant. The suit was filed on the strength of a letter of subrogation, dated 8/7/1983, marked as Ex. A-8. ( 11 ) ADMITTEDLY, no notice was issued by the respondent to the appellant, at any point of time. The respondent has fallen back upon Ex. A-2, in the matter of compliance with Section 10. If there existed any valid transfer of the claim of the consignor, against the appellant, in favour of the respondent, Ex. A-2 would enure to the benefit of the respondent. Therefore, the consideration of this issue would depend, much upon the answer to issue No. 1. ( 12 ) AN action in law, particularly on the basis of a contract, can be maintained only against the persons or agencies, which are parties to the contract. Privity of contract is one of the essentials, to sustain a claim made under it. Therefore, the consideration of this issue would depend, much upon the answer to issue No. 1. ( 12 ) AN action in law, particularly on the basis of a contract, can be maintained only against the persons or agencies, which are parties to the contract. Privity of contract is one of the essentials, to sustain a claim made under it. Where, however, the transfer of the claim is permissible in law, the transferee also can maintain such proceedings, subject to certain conditions. It would be competent for an agent also to bring such proceedings, but only on behalf of the principal. The purport of an agreement or arrangement between the consignor on the one hand, and insurer of the goods, on the other hand, and the legal consequences flowing out of it, vis-a-vis the carrier, was dealt with extensively by the Supreme Court in Union of India v Sri Sarada Mills, AIR 1973 sc 281 ( 13 ) AS in the instant case, there also an insurance coverage existed, between the consignor and an insurer. However, the proceedings were almost converse, when compared to this case. Having realized the amount, representing the damage to the goods from the insurer, the consignor filed a suit against the earner. A plea was taken by the carrier to the effect that receipt of amount, representing the damage to the goods from the insurer, would bring an end to the right of the consignor to maintain an action against the carrier. It was in this context, that the question, as to whether a right to claim damages for breach of contract can be transferred or assigned, or whether the same would constitute a mere right to sue, transfer of which, is prohibited under Section 6 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act, (for short the T. P. Act) was discussed with reference to the leading English and indian cases. The Supreme Court observed as under :para-15 "a chose in action for breach of contract was not assignable at law but was assignable at equity A chose in action in tort as assignable neither in law nor in equity. A bare right of action is not assignable when however the right of action is one of the incidents attached to the property or contract assigned it will not be treated as a bare right of action. A bare right of action is not assignable when however the right of action is one of the incidents attached to the property or contract assigned it will not be treated as a bare right of action. " ( 14 ) REPELLING the objection as to the maintainability of the suit, by the consignor, it heldpara-19 : "the respondent mill will give a valid discharge to the Railway Administration (carrier) in respect of loss and damages this decree will be a bar to the institution of any suit by the insurance company in respect of the subject-matter of the suit The respondent mill is answerable and accountable to the insurance company for the moneys recovered in the suit to the extent the insurance company paid the respondent mill" ( 15 ) IN that case, the document between the consignor and the insurer contained the expression subrogation as well as transfer The Supreme Court has chosen, not to express any opinion as to the effect of the same ( 16 ) IN Narasa Reddy v Venkata subbayya, AIR 1964 AP 71 , a learned single Judge of this Court took the view that the basic obligation of a earner is to the owner of the goods i e, the consignor and a suit filed by an agent, claiming the benefit under Section 8 of the Carriers act, is not maintainable. It is beneficial to extract the relevant portion of the said judgment. Para-13 "the Carriers Act, while restricting the powers of a common carrier of exempting himself from his common law liability, by section 8 creates a liability and gives the benefit of that liability to the owner It is only the owner that is entitled to the benefit of that section The plaintiff who is himself "common earner", undertook to carry the goods belonging to Messrs Syed trading Company from Madras to Tadipatri and he engaged the 1st defendant, another "common carrier", to carry them from proddatur to Tadipatn The plaintiff, not being the owner of the goods, is not entitled to maintain a suit under Section 8 of the carrers Act against the 1st defendant". ( 17 ) A situation, which is identical to the one, in the present case, arose, in United india F and G. Insurance Co. Ltd v P transport Carriers, AIR 1986 AP 32 . ( 17 ) A situation, which is identical to the one, in the present case, arose, in United india F and G. Insurance Co. Ltd v P transport Carriers, AIR 1986 AP 32 . There also, the question, as to the maintainability of the suit, by the insurer, arose. A distinguishing feature, however is that there existed an assignment and transfer of the rights of the consignor, in favour of the insurer, under Ex. A-3, marked in that case. The document read, inter alia,"we hereby assign and transfer to you all our rights, title and interest in respect of the said goods and all rights and claims against any person or persons in respect thereof. In one place of the judgment, this assignment was treated as subrogation. Proceeding on the basis that the right arising out of a transport contract is an actionable claim, it was held that an insurer can maintain the suit. The judgment in Narasa Reddys case (supra), was cited with approval. " ( 18 ) BASICALLY, an actionable claim is a debt, not secured by mortgage of immovable property, or hypothecation or pledge of movable properties. Claim to any beneficial interest in movable property, subject to certain circumstances, would also amount to actionable claim. By its very nature, a debt is a sum, which is already ascertained or is ascertainable under the contract. Uncertainty in this regard, is prone to render the claim not an actionable one. Contracts arising under the Carriers Act, are, by and large, treated as actionable claims. However there is difference of opinion in this regard. (See AIR 1947 Nagpur 31 and Ibrahim Isaphai v. Union of India and another, AIR 1966 Gujarat 6 ). ( 19 ) THERE does not appear to be any authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme court, on this aspect. ( 20 ) ASSUMING that the contracts under the Carriers Act, answers the description of an actionable claim as defined under the T. P. Act and the rights thereunder can be transferred under Section 130 of that act; there must exist a valid transfer, to enable the insurer to main a suit, to recover the amount, paid by it, to the consignor. Sub-section (2) of Section 130 of the T. P. Act, enables it to maintain the suit, even without impleading the consignor as a party to such suit. Sub-section (2) of Section 130 of the T. P. Act, enables it to maintain the suit, even without impleading the consignor as a party to such suit. The sine quo non is however, the existence of a transfer. ( 21 ) GENERALLY, the words "subrogation", "assignment" and "transfer" are used interchangeably. The distinction among these expressions is worth being noticed. Subrogation is a concept, which is defined under Section 92 of the T. P. Act. It deals with situations, where a mortgage is redeemed by a person, other than the mortgagee. Basically, it is for the mortgagee to seek redemption of the mortgage. Section 92 enables four categories of persons; namely: (a) a true mortgagee, (b) a person other than the mortgagee, who has any interest or charge upon the mortgaged property, (c) a surety for payment of the mortgage debt, and (d) any creditor of the mortgagor; to redeem the mortgage. ( 22 ) IF any of these persons redeem the mortgage, they will be subject to the same obligations entitled to the same rights, as that of a mortgagee, whose interest was redeemed. An important aspect, which needs to be noted is that, the categories of persons, referred to above, are clothed with the respective rights under the Act itself. There is no necessity for the existence of any contract, between the parties, to bring about the suborgation. Incidences of subrogation can take place in other areas also, but the party who subrogates, cannot acquire the same rights as that of a transferee. ( 23 ) ASSIGNMENT and transfer, on the other hand, can take place only with the specific acts of parties. Unlike in the case of subrogation, the transferee steps into the shoes of the transferor and thereby, acquires all the rights of the latter, vis-a-vis the transferred property. In Oberai Forwarding agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , air 2000 SC 855 , a question arose, as to whether an insurer can maintain an action against a carrier, on the strength of a subrogation, in its favour, by the consignor. It was held that the subrogation, at the most, can enable the insurer, to maintain a suit, but, in the name of the consignor. A clear distinction between the subrogation, on the one hand, and transfer, on the other hand, was explained. It was held that the subrogation, at the most, can enable the insurer, to maintain a suit, but, in the name of the consignor. A clear distinction between the subrogation, on the one hand, and transfer, on the other hand, was explained. The following passage from the judgment of the Madras High Court in Vasudeva Mudaliar v. Caledonian insurance Co. , AIR 1965 Mad. 159 , was quoted with approval. Para-5 :-"where, therefore, an insurer is subrogated to the rights and remedies of the assured, the former is to be more or less in the same position as the assured in respect of third parties and his claims against them founded on tortuous liability in cases of motor accidents. But it should be noted that the fact that an insurer is subrogated to the rights and remedies of the assured does not ipso jure enable him to sue third parties in his own name. It will only entitle the insurer to sue in the name of assured, it being an obligation of the assured to lend his name and assistance to such an action. By subrogation, the insurer gets no better rights or not different remedies than the assured himself. Subrogation and its effect are, therefore, not to be mixed up with those of a transfer or an assignment by the assured of his rights and remedies to the insurer. An assignment or a transfer implies something more than subrogation, and vests in the insurer the assureds interest, rights and remedies in respect of the subject-matter and substance of the insurance. In such a case, therefore, the insurer, by virtue of the transfer or assignment in his favour will be in a position to maintain a suit in his own name against third parties. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 24 ) CERTAIN passages from the book "insurance Law" by Mac Gillivray and parkington were also extracted. It is beneficial to make to reference to them. "both subrogation and assignment permit one party to enjoy the rights of another, but it is well-established that subrogation is not a species of assignment. Rights of subrogation vest by operation of law rather than as the product of express agreement. Whereas rights of subrogation can be enjoyed by the insurer as soon as payment is made, as assignment requires an agreement that the rights of the assured be assigned to the insurer. Rights of subrogation vest by operation of law rather than as the product of express agreement. Whereas rights of subrogation can be enjoyed by the insurer as soon as payment is made, as assignment requires an agreement that the rights of the assured be assigned to the insurer. Another distinction lies in the procedure of enforcing the rights acquired by virtue of the two doctrines. An insurer exercising rights of subrogation against third parties must do so in the name of the assured. An insurer who has taken a legal assignment of his assureds rights under statute should proceed in his own name. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 25 ) THE Supreme Court ultimately held that the insurer in that case was clothed only with subrogation and it was not competent for it, to maintain a suit in its name. Since the claim was presented under the Consumer Protection Act, it was held that the insurer does not answer the description of a consumer. ( 26 ) REVERTING to the facts of the case, it is clear from Ex. A-2 that the rights of the consignor were "subrogated" in favour of the respondent. The very description of ex. A-8 is "the letter of subrogation and special Power of Attorney". Even if there exists any doubt, as to the effect of subrogation, the fact that a special Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the respondent herein, would lead to an inevitable conclusion, that a Power of attorney can maintain an action, only in the name of the principal, and not in its own name. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to maintain the suit, in the form, in which, it was presented, to recover the amount from the appellants. ( 27 ) THE second appeal is accordingly allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Lower appellate Court are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.