1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff Brahm Dev Gupta against the two defendants. The first defendant is the Container Corporation of India Limited (CONCOR) and the second defendant is New India Assurance Company Limited.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is carrying on the business of import and export under the name and style of M/s D.S.M. International. He is the sole proprietor. Defendant No.1 is a public limited company. In the course of its business, the plaintiff had entrusted a consignment meant for export to defendant No.1 along with relevant documents. The said consignment/cargo was entrusted to defendant No.1 on 07.04.2010 at its Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad, Delhi. The value of the consignment, the nature of goods and all other relevant details were declared and made known to defendant No.1; this consignment was accompanied by the copy of the invoice; receipt (CRN Slip) was issued by defendant No.1 acknowledging the aforesaid entrustment.

3. On 10.04.2010, a public notice was issued by defendant No.1 notifying that some of the export cargo kept at its export warehouse at ICD, Tughlakabad had been gutted in fire which had been broken out on 10.04.2010. On inquiry, it was learnt that the consignment of the plaintiff was damaged. This consignment was in the exclusive custody and possession of defendant No.1.

4. M/s Inter Ocean Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. was appointed by defendant No.1 to conduct a joint survey for assessing the loss and damage which has occurred. It was reported that the complete consignment of the plaintiff had been gutted; there was no salvage. This was because of the fire which had broken out on 10.04.2010.

5. On 15.04.2010, the plaintiff submitted his claim for compensation to defendant No.1. Submission of the plaintiff is that the consignment/cargo entrusted to defendant No.1 was covered by an insurance which was issued by defendant No.2, (New India Assurance Company Limited). Defendant No.1 had in fact lodged its claim with defendant No.2 for its claim for damages.

6. The plaintiff is entitled to be compensated. He is restricting his claim to the value of the consignment. Further submission being that under the Right to Information Act, the plaintiff had obtained a copy of the report of the committee constituted by defendant No.1 to inquire into the causes and remedial measure with regards to the fire which had broken out on 10.04.2010 and as per their report, they had found that the system of fire fighting installed at ICD, Tughlakabad is designed for handling small fires and was completely inept for handling fires of the intensity which had broken out on 10.04.2010. Submission of the plaintiff being that he has suffered loss equivalent to Rs.45,01,800/- being the invoice value of his consignment. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum has also been claimed. Further submission is that defendant No.2 is also a necessary party as defendant No.1 has admittedly obtained his insurance cover from defendant No.2.

7. Written statement was filed by defendant No.1 refuting the averments made in the plaint. It was not denied that cargo from the plaintiff had been received containing 61 packages of Rayon/Viscose Scarves meant for transport; all export consignment received at ICD, Tughlakabad are booked by rail by a shipping company by executing a forwarding note (FN) under Section 64 of the Indian Railway Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). This FN contained the terms and conditions which clearly mentioned that the terms were governed by the Railways Act, 1989. Any loss or damage, if caused to the cargo shall be dealt with under the said Act. It was not denied that an accidental fire had broken out on 10.04.2010 in the ICD godown of defendant No.1 at Tughlakabad and the consignment of the plaintiff had also been damaged. It is stated that other exporters had contacted the answering defendant and settled their grievances. Defendant No. 1 had taken a liability ins