The Carrier's liability for the loss, damage, or non-delivery of goods entrusted to it is not limited or affected by any public notice unless there is a special contract signed by the owner of the property.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

N.S. Sanjay Gowda, J. - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for brevity, referred to as 'Insurer') and M/s. Wipro Fluid Power Limited (for brevity, referred to as 'Consignor') instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,54,272/-against Haryana Maharashtra Road Ways (Private) Limited (for brevity, referred to as 'Carrier') and the said suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.1,54,272/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the Carrier is in appeal.

2. It was stated that a consignment containing Hydraulic Cylinders and various other components were packed in polythene bags and these bags were placed in 59 wooden crates/cases and the consignment was entrusted to the Carrier on 07.09.2001. The consignment was booked under carrier receipt Nos.G.R.1058 and 1059, which stated that the consignment consisted of Hydraulic Cylinders worth Rs.31,07,611/- and the Consignee was M/s. Escorts J.C.B. Limited.

3. It was stated that Carrier received the goods and agreed to deliver the same to the Consignee and necessary charges were paid for the transport of these goods. It was, however, alleged that the Carrier failed to deliver the consignment and due to the negligent act on their part, the truck, in which the consignment was carried, met with an accident on 09.09.2001, which had resulted in damage to the consignment.

4. It was stated that 20 Hydraulic Cylinders had been damaged and had been rendered useless resulting in short delivery of goods worth Rs.1,69,144/-.

5. It was stated that the Consignor had insured the goods with the Insurer and the office of the Carrier at Bengaluru had issued a Damage Certificate dated 16.09.2001 and the Consignor had also received a Short Delivery intimation from the Consignee and consequently, a claim was laid with the Insurer for a sum of Rs.1,69,144/- and the Insurance Company, being satisfied with the claim, accepted the same and settled it for a sum of Rs.1,53,772/- on 18.06.2002.

6. It was stated that the Carrier was bound to deliver the consignment with due care and caution and since the damage had occurred to the goods entrusted to it, it was liable to reimburse the loss of Rs.1,53,772/-.

7. It was stated that a notice was issued on 10.09.2001 calling upon the Carrier to pay damages of Rs.1,53,772/- and though this notice was received, the claim was not settled. It was also stated that a legal notice was issued and on receipt of the legal notice, the Carrier had sought some clarification and after the same were furnished, the Carrier proceeded to refuse the settlement of the claim and therefore, left with no other alternative, the suit was filed.

8. The Carrier entered appearance and contested the suit. It admitted the entrustment of the consignment but denied the assertion that it had not taken due care and caution in respect of goods entrusted to it.

9. It stated that the truck in which the goods were being carried had been parked on the side of the road and another truck coming from the opposite direction collided with the said truck and as a result, there was damage to the goods being carried in the truck. It was stated that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the other truck, and this was clear from the contents of the FIR registered in respect of the accident.

10. The Carrier, however, did not admit that 20 Hydraulic Cylinders had been damaged and it called upon the Consignor to prove this assertion. It also stated that it was unaware that the goods had been insured with the Insurer and the Damage Certificate had been issued at the instance of the Consignor without admitting the liability under the law. The Carrier did not admit that Consignor had received Short Delivery intimation from the Consignee and that the value of the goods short delivered was Rs.1,69,144/-. The entire claim made by the Consignor was denied by the Carrier.

11. It was also stated that in the notice dated 10.09.2001