( 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. 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 issue

Click Here to Read the rest of this document