SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

S.N.KAPOOR, B.K.TAIMNI
Simran Roadlines – Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: NEMO.
For the Respondents:Mr. A.K. Raina, Advocate.

ORDER

B.K. Taimni, Member—The appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission where the respondents had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant.

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the first respondent M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. entrusted a consignment of 12,900 kgs. of Linear Alkyl Benzene (L.A.B.) chemical for carriage from its unit at Patalganga to Pondicherry under invoice No. L-922 dated 23rd February, 1993. The appellant loaded this consignment in tanker No. MCY 3188 for which lorry receipt was also issued. The consignment was not delivered at Pondicherry to the consignee but was lost on account of accident in which the said tanker was involved. The consignment was also insured. The matter was taken up by the consignee M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. with the appellant/transporter as also with the Insurance Company (respondent No. 2). The Insurance Company appointed surveyors and after following due process, settled the claim with the first respondent by paying Rs. 6,10,900 after obtaining a letter of subrogation and assignment. When the matter was taken up by the consigner with the appellant transporter for settlement of it



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top