Only the owner of the goods can sustain a claim under Section 8 of the Carriers Act.

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition, arises out of a suit filed by the respondent, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 260. 00 towards damages for the loss of a consignment of beedies entrusted by him for transport from Proddatur to Tadipatri.

( 2 ) THE 1st defendant was impleaded in the suit as he was the owner of the public carrier and was liable to make good the loss occasioned to the plaintiff by the non-delivery of the goods entrusted to the 2nd defendant, who was at the material time, his driver.

( 3 ) THE facts which are material for the purpose of appreciating the points raised before me can be briefly stated. The plaintiff is the owner of a motor lorry and is a resident of Proddatur. The 1st defendant is also a resident o Proddatur and is the owner of the motor lorry A P D 625. The and defendant was in the employ of the first defendant, at the material time as his driver. Messrs. Syed Trading Company are the manufacturers of a brand of beedies, known as Gopuram Beedies, having their place of business at Washemanpet, Madras.

( 4 ) A merchant of Proddatur, by name, Rangarao, placed an order with Messre. Syed Trading Company for the supply of two bags of Gopuram Beedies. The Company entrusted the consignment of beedis, to Sri Subramanyam Lorry Service. This lorry service, in their turn, entrusted the goods to the plaintiff who transported them from Madras to Proddatur. There he entrusted them to the 2nd defendant for their transport to Tadipatri, where the consignee had his place of business. The goods were admittedly not delivered to the consignee.

( 5 ) ON 13/01/1959, the plaintiff, gave two registered notices, one to the 1st defendant, and the other to the 2nd defendant, calling upon them to make good the loss occasioned by the non-delivery of the consignment. He instituted the suit on 24/04/1959, for recovery of the sum of Rs. 260. 00 being the value of the two bags of beedis.

( 6 ) THE 2nd defendant remained ex parte.

( 7 ) THE 1st defendant contested the suit on various grounds. It is not necessary, for the present purpose, to notice the several contentions raised by him. He denied the alleged entrustment of the goods by the plaintiff to the and defendant. He also denied having received any notice prior to the institution of the suit.

( 8 ) TWO of the points which were raised by the trial Court for determination, are relevant and may be set out. "i. Whether the first defendant is a common carrier within the meaning of the provisions of Carriers Act (III of 1865)? x x x 5. Whether the notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act was given to the defendants?"

( 9 ) ON the first point, the trial Court held that the 1st defendant, was a common carrier; and on the 5th point, held that the notices, as required by Section 10 of the Act, were given to the defendants. The Court below also found that the entrustment of the consignment by the plaintiff to the and defendant was true and that the goods were lost in transit. As a result of the findings reached by him, the learned Munsif decreed the suit against both the defendants. The 1st defendant has preferred this revision petition against the said decree.

( 10 ) MR. K. Jayachandra Reddi, learned counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing the correctness of the findings of fact reached by the trial Court on the question of entrustment of the goods and their loss in transit, has argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit by reason of the fact that he was not the owner of the goods, which is a necessary pre-requisite for the plaintiff sustaining the claim under the Carriers Act. He has also argued that there was no evidence that the notices, Exs. A-5 and A-6, were correctly addressed and that they were refused by the defendants.

( 11 ) FROM the facts narrated above, it is manifest that the plaintiff was not the owner of the consignment in question. Indeed, in his evidence as P. W. 1, he admitted that he was not the owner of the goods. While hol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document