SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G. B. Pattanaik, U.C. Banerjee and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1806 of 2000. (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10782 of 2000). D/d. 14.3.2001.

Ace Door to Door express Cargo - Appellant

Versus

Pfizer Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 23 - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 141 - Consumer Forum did not accept the contentions of the appellant on the question of maintainability and other whether document in question amounted to assignment or subrogation - Said questions already stood answered in Oberoi Forwarding case 2000(2) SCC 407 - Whether judgment rendered by three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Oberoi Forwarding case to be reconsidered since two Judge Bench in C.A.No. 5611/1999 M/s Economic Transport Organisation expressed that earlier decision in Oberoi Forwarding case may be reconsidered - Held - Having considered the judgment in Oberoi Forwarding case, it is not justified to reconsider the same - Document under consideration in Oberoi Forwarding case was in identical terms with the document under consideration in instant appeal - While interpreting the provisions of the law when the documents indicated the intention of the parties, and when such document was interpreted to be a case of assignment, recourse to the so-called 'purposeful interpretation' should not be taken and the judgment should not be reconsidered.

[Para 2]

Cases Referred :-

Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2000 (2) SCC SCC 407.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the Consumer Forums. The two contentions raised by the appellants did not find favour with by the Consumer Forums, one on the question of maintainability and other whether the document in question amounts to an assignment or subrogation. Both these questions have already been considered and answered by a 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. since reported in 2000 (2) SCC SCC 407. It is true that in C.A. No.5611/1999 a Bench of 2-Learned Judges in the case of M/s. Economic Transport Organisation v. M/s. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. expressed that the earlier decision in the Oberai Forwarding Agency may be re-considered. But having considered the judgment of the Oberai Forwarding Agency and the law laid down therein, we see no justification for re-consideration of the same. While interpreting the provisions of the law when the documents indicated the intention of the parties, and when such document is interpreted to be a case of assignment, we do not see why recourse to be taken to the so-called 'purposeful interpretation' and the judgment should be re-considered. The document under consideration in Oberai Forwarding Agency was in identical terms with the document which is under consideration in present appeal. We see hardly any justification for re-consideration the judgment of this Court in Oberai Forwarding Agency, as in our view the 3-Judge Bench has considered all the relevant aspects in the light of the earlier decisions of this Court. We respectfully agree with the conclusion arrived at by this Court in Oberai Forwarding Agency, necessarily therefore the present appeal would stand allowed.

.