In a claim for damages to goods during transit, the standard of proof required to establish the damage is high. A mere report of a Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company is not sufficient to establish the extent of damage, especially when the report is vague and lacks corroboration from other technical evidence.

Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member—This is an appeal filed by M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Limited, Village Rampur, Jalalabad Road, Tehsil Sadar, District Shahjahanpur and the National Insurance Company Limited through the Divisional Manager of National Insurance Company, Shahjahanpur against Sri Jai Ambe Transport Company, Ahmedabad against the order dated 9.11.1998 passed by District Forum, Shahjahanpur in Complaint Case No. 179/98 :

2. The facts of the case are as under :

The appellant K.R. Pulp and Papers Limited had placed an order for supply of two dryers from Ahmedabad manufacturer. Payment of equipment was made to the manufacturer and the equipment containing two dryers was despatched through the respondent Shri Jai Ambe Transport, Ahmedabad. Freight was mutually decided as Rs. 18,025/-. The two dryers were loaded in truck No. GJ-IB/3370. During the transit the respondent changed the truck in which the two dryers were loaded. The changed truck No. was GJ-IU-3400. When the truck reached the destination it was found that the dryers were completely damaged. The appellant K.R. Pulp paid the freight of Rs. 18,025/- and received the consignment. The driver of the truck verified the damage of the dryers. Since the appellant had taken the Insurance policy for the transit of said consignment of the order of Rs. 3,20,000/- on 20.3.1998 and as per the terms of the policy a claim was lodged with the Insurance Company- appellant No. 2. Insurance Company-appellant No. 2 granted a claim of Rs. 2,80,000/- and authorised the appellant to realise the cost of the damaged equipments.

3. According to the appellant the cost of two dryers was Rs. 4,47,200/- which were received in damaged condition.

4. The District Consumer Forum heard the complainant and passed an ex parte order as the opposite party-respondent in this case did not appear before the Forum. The District Forum came to the conclusion that there was no clear proof as to what specific damage has been caused, therefore, dismissed the complaint. The complainant, therefore, preferred an appeal before this Commission challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Forum.

5. In the memo of appeal, it has been stated that the findings given by learned District Forum that the appellant failed to prove that the two drying cylinders were damaged and were of no use whereas the Surveyor in his report had categorily stated that the drying cylinders were badly damaged and cannot be used in quality production of packing papers. This report of the Surveyor was filed before Forum. He had also stated that the driver of the truck had also given an endorsement that two drying cylinders were damaged in the way. The Insurance Company- appellant No. 2 as per the survey report sanctioned a claim of Rs. 2,84,900/- by means of a cheque and, therefore, in view of these facts the findings given by the Forum were totally incorrect. It was because of negligence on the part of the respondents that the equipment was damaged during the transit when the same was unloaded from the truck and loaded on another truck. Appellant No. 2-National Insurance Company also filed an affidavit confirming the facts given in the grounds of appeal by the appellant and the said drying cylinders were sent by the respondent to the appellant No. 1 on 1.1.1998 vide Bill No. P-14 and GR No. 269. But appellant No. 1 had taken a Marine Policy with appellant No. 2 and when drying cylinders reached the destination, appellant No. 1 found that the said cylinders had been badly damaged. After receiving the survey report, the appellant No. 2 settled the insurance claim for a sum of Rs. 2,84,900/- and the same was paid to appellant No. 1 on 22.5.1998.

6. Notice was issued to the opposite party- respondent to appear on 18.5.1998. The notice was issued on 12.2.1999 but in spite of the registered notice the opposite party did not attend the case and the case proceeded ex parte.

7. We have heard learned Counsel for appellant Anil Kumar