JUDGMENT - M.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---The only question raised in this second appeal is whether it was obligatory on the respondent-original plaintiff to give a notice as required under section 10 of the Carriers Act, in the event of non-delivery of goods.

2. On 18th August, 1969 the respondent entrusted three bales of handloom saris to the appellant at Wardha for carriage and delivery to the respondent at Nagpur. The bales were worth Rs. 5273-35 p and could have in normal course been delivered to the respondent within three days of the booking. The goods were never delivered and the respondent, therefore, filed a suit for compensation. The appellant inter alia contended that a notice as required under section 10 of the Carriers Act, was necessary. Both the Courts below found that the appellant did not deliver the goods to the plaintiff, that the goods were worth Rs. 5273-35 P. and that the trial Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. They negatived the contention that a notice under section 10 of the Carriers Act was necessary.

3. Shri Bhandge for the appellant relied on the provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Carriers Act, which run as follows:---

"9. Plaintiff's, in suits for loss,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document