A carrier is liable for the damage to goods during transportation if it is negligent in not properly protecting the goods.

Mr. Justice R.C. Mankad President—This complaint is filed on behalf of Navbharat Seeds Private Limited (complainant No. 1) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (complainant No. 2) for recovery of Rs. 1,42,993/- and costs from the opponents alleging as follows. Complainant No. 1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of supplying different varieties of seeds and developed seeds products. Complainant No. 2 is an Insurance Company which is subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation. Opponent No. 1 is a common carrier having branches all over India. It is engaged in the business of transporting goods. Opponent No. 2 is also a common carrier engaged in the business of transporting goods. Complainant No. 1 through its agent M/s. Andhra Seeds Corporation booked consignment of 117 gunny bags containing certified ‘Bajra’ seeds with opponent No. 1. It is stated that truck of opponent No. 1 was hired for Rs. 6,530/- for transporting the said consignment out of which part was to be delivered at Nadiad and the rest at Narol office of complainant No. 1. The consignment was booked under lorry receipt No. 375 dated June 1,1992. The value of the goods i.e. the consignment was stated to be Rs. 1,75,000/-. The consignment was badly damaged during its transportation due to rains. According to the complainants the consignment was not protected from rains and, therefore, when the goods were delivered in all 87 bags out out of consignment of 117 bags were found totally damaged. Both the opponents issued certificates stating to the effect that 87 bags of ‘Bajra’ seeds were damaged. Certificate issued by opponent No. 1 is dated June 12,1990 whereas the certificate issued by opponent No. 2 is dated June 8, 1990. It is submitted that on account of the damage to the ‘Bajra’ seeds, complainant No. 1 suffered loss of Rs. 1,21,770/-.

2. The aforesaid consignment, it appears, was insured with complainant No. 2 under policy No. 60400/21/26/11/0082/90. Complainant No. 1, therefore, lodged claim with complainant No. 2 for Rs. 1,23,435/- on account of loss/damage suffered by it and it also gave notice to the opponents calling upon them to settle their claim on account of the said loss for an amount of Rs. 1,21,770/-. Complainant No. 2 offered to settle the claim made by complainant No. 1 for Rs. 92,993/- on the condition that complainant No. 1 executed a letter of subrogation in its favour. Although complainant No. 1 has suffered loss as aforesaid, it had no alternative but to accept the offer of complainant No. 2. Complainant No. 2, therefore, paid Rs. 92,933/- towards the loss suffered by complainant No. 1. It is, however, sunmitted that complainant No. 1 is entitled to recover the balance of the amount for the loss suffered by it from the opponent. So far as complainant No. 2 is concerned, it is submitted that it is entitled to recover Rs. 92,993/- from the opponents as subrogatee. It is in the background of the above facts that this complaint is filed for the recovery of compensation as aforesaid.

3. This complaint is resisted by opponent No. 1. It is not denied that 87 bags of ‘Bajra’ seeds were damaged as alleged by the complainant. It is, however, submitted that the consignments were damaged on account of heavy rain and cyclone during its transhipment. The consignment was properly protected by three layers of tarpaulin but inspite of the protection given to the consignment, part of the consignment as aforesaid was damaged. The damage was on account of act of God and, therefore, opponent No. 1 was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants. It is alleged that the complainants have colluded to recover compensation from the opponents. The opponents having taken reasonable care of the consignment for its safe journey to its destination, the opponents could not be held guilty of deficiency of service. Therefore, according to opponent No. 1, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4. It does appear from the evidence on record that