ORDER B.K. Taimni, Member—The appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission where the respondents had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant. 2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the first respondent M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. entrusted a consignment of 12,900 kgs. of Linear Alkyl Benzene (L.A.B.) chemical for carriage from its unit at Patalganga to Pondicherry under invoice No. L-922 dated 23rd February, 1993. The appellant loaded this consignment in tanker No. MCY 3188 for which lorry receipt was also issued. The consignment was not delivered at Pondicherry to the consignee but was lost on account of accident in which the said tanker was involved. The consignment was also insured. The matter was taken up by the consignee M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. with the appellant/transporter as also with the Insurance Company (respondent No. 2). The Insurance Company appointed surveyors and after following due process, settled the claim with the first respondent by paying Rs. 6,10,900 after obtaining a letter of subrogation and assignment. When the matter was taken up by the consigner with the appellant transporter for settlement of its claim and when the matter was not getting settled, a complaint was filed by the Insurers as well as the consigner M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. against the appellant Road-lines. The matter was contested by the appellant. The State Commission after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record directed the appellant to pay Rs. 6,10,900 along with interest @ 8% from the date of the order till actual payment plus cost of Rs. 30,000 to the Insurance Company. 3. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. There is no disputing fact between the parties that the original consigner i.e. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. had been paid Rs. 6,10,900 by the Insurance Company and had obtained a ‘letter of subrogation’ and ‘assignment’. 4. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with a case of similar nature and facts. In the case of Oberoi Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co Ltd. and another2 in paras 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24 had observed as follows: “18. 4. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with a case of similar nature and facts. In the case of Oberoi Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co Ltd. and another2 in paras 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24 had observed as follows: “18. The distinction between subrogation and assignment is explained in the standard text book on “Insurance Law” by Mac Gillivrary & Parkington (Seventh Edition). “1131. Difference between subrogation and assignment. 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. Right 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, an assignment requires be agreement that the rights of the assured be assigned to the insurer. The insurer cannot require the assured to assign to him his rights against third parties as a condition of payment unless there is a special clause in the policy obliging the assured to do so. This distinction is of some importance, since in certain circumstances an insurer might prefer to take an assignment of an assureds right rather than rely upon his rights of subrogation for example, there was any prospect of the insured being able to recover more than his actual loss from a third party, an insurer, who had taken an assignment of the assureds rights, would be able to recover the extra money for himself whereas an insurer who was confined to rights of subrogation would have to allow the assured to retain the excess. 1132. 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 assured’s right under statue should proceed in his own name…” (Emphasis supplied) 19. With the distinction between subrogation and assignment in view, let us examine the letter of subrogation executed by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent. An insurer who has taken a legal assignment of his assured’s right under statue should proceed in his own name…” (Emphasis supplied) 19. With the distinction between subrogation and assignment in view, let us examine the letter of subrogation executed by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent. Its operative portion may be broken up into two, namely: (i) “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 (ii) “we hereby subrogate to you the same rights as we have in consequence of or arising from the said loss or damage.” 20. By the first clause the second respondent assigned and transferred to the first respondent all its rights arising by reasons of the loss of the consignment. It granted the first respondent full power to take lawful means to recover the claim for the loss, and to do so in its own name. If it were a mere subrogation, first, the word ‘assigned’ would not be used. Secondly, there would not be a transfer of all the second respondent’s right in respect of the loss but the transfer would be limited to the recovery of the amount paid by the first respondent to the second respondent. Thirdly, the first respondent would not be entitled to take steps to recover the loss in its own name,. the steps for recovery would have to be taken in the name of the second respondent. Thus, by the first clause there was an assignment in favour of the first respondent. 23. Now, as is clear, the loss of the consignment had already occurred. All that was assigned and transferred by the second respondent to the first respondent was the right to recover compensation for the loss. There was no question of the first respondent being a beneficiary of the service that the second respondent had hired from the appellant. That service, namely, the transportation of the consignment, had already been availed of by the second respondent, and in the course of it the consignment had been lost. There was no question of the first respondent being a beneficiary of the service that the second respondent had hired from the appellant. That service, namely, the transportation of the consignment, had already been availed of by the second respondent, and in the course of it the consignment had been lost. The first respondent, therefore was not a consumer, within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, and was, therefore not entitled to maintain the complaint. 24. By reason of the transfer and assignment of all the rights of the second respondent in the first respondent’s favour, the second respondent retained no right to recover compensation for the loss of the consignment. The addition of the second respondent to the complainant as a complainant did not, therefore, make the complaint maintainable.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. In the aforementioned circumstances, the Order of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, the Respondents shall be free to seek remedy before any appropriate forum, if so advised under appropriate law for which the time spent before the Consumer Fora can be sought to be exempted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute.2 Appeal allowed. ******