( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

( 2 ) THE appellant is a transport company. It questions the judgment dated 2-6-1987 of a learned single Judge of this Court in C. C. C. A. No. 36 of 1979 confirming the judgment and decree dated 19-9-1978 of the learned 6th Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in O. S. No. 611 of 1975 filed by the respondents herein decreeing the suit and awarding a sum of Rs. 7,961. 80 Ps. to the respondents to he paid by the appellant towards loss and damage caused to the goods of the 2nd respondent, which were entrusted to the appellant for transporting from Hyderabad to Madras on a finding that there was negligence on the part of the appellant carrier. The 1st respondent is the Insurance Company with which the 2nd respondent insured the goods while in transit after entrustment to the appellant for transport.

( 3 ) ENTRUSTMENT of 41 bales of semi tanned sleep skin to the appellant carrier for transportation from Hyderabad to Madras is not in dispute. The goods were in fact carried by the appellant and delivered to the 2nd respondent at Madras on 15-12-1972. After deli very the 2nd respondent found that 24 bales were in wet condition and some semi tanned sheep skin therein was damaged. That was certified by the Manager of appellant under certificate dated 15-12-1972 (Ex. A. 5), In respect of the damage suffered by the goods, the 2nd respondent laid claim on the 1st respondent-insurer and after assessment of the damage occasioned to the said goods at Rs. 15,923. 60 Ps. the 1st respondent paid the said amount to the 2nd respondent after obtaining a Power of Attorney dated 13-1-1973 from the consignees i. e. the 2nd respondent firm, in its favour and also a letter assigning and transferring to the 1st respondent all the rights, title and interest of the 2nd respondent in respect of the said goods and all rights or claims against any person or persons in respect thereof, etc. There is also a report (Ex. A. 9) regarding the damage suffered by the goods made by the surveyor, P. W. 2 at the instance of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent addressed letter dated 6-12-1972 to the. appellant claiming compensation in respect of the damage caused to the said goods and the appellant replied by letter dated 8-1-1973 (Ex. A. 6) admitting that on account of very heavy and torrential rains en-route the consignments got "slightly damaged by rain water splashing" and that was the normal transit hazard due to circumstances beyond its control and that as the goods were booked at owners risk they would not admit claim or liability in the matter and suggested that the matter should be taken up with "the Insurance Company with which you should have taken a policy for covering" the goods in question. It is under those circumstances O. S. No. 611 of 1975 was instituted by the respondents claiming a sum of Rs. 15,923. 60 Ps. with interest and costs towards the damage caused due to the negligence of the appellant to the goods of the 2nd respondent transported by it from Hyderabad to Madras.

( 4 ) THE learned 6th Additional Judge found that there was not merely negligence of the appellant but also of the 2nd respondent and, accepting the evaluation of damage at Rs. 15,923. 60 Ps. and apportioning the same at fifty percent towards the negligence on the part of the appellant, decreed the suit to that extent. The appellant s appeal C. C. C. A. No. 36 of 1979 questioning the judgment and decree of the learned 6th Additional Judge was dismissed by the learned single Judge. Observing that the only question that arose for consideration was whether Ex. A. 8 letter related to mere right to sue for damages which was not transferable under Section 6 (e) of Transfer of Property Act and therefore the suit was not maintainable, the learned single Judge held that the said right was not a mere right to sue and that the suit laid jointly by the respondents i. e. t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document