The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of a trustee relationship between the forwarding agent and the owner of the consignment, allowing the owner to enforce the trust created in their favor and implead the insurer as a party.

M.R. Verma, J.—This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) has been preferred by the appellant-defendant (hereafter referred to as the appellant) against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1998, passed by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur Division at Rampur, whereby he had modified the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1996 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Rampur.

2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of the present appeal are that respondent No. 1 (hereafter referred to as R-l) instituted a suit against the appellant, respondents 2 and 3 (hereafter referred to as R-2 and R-3) and one M/s. Jindal Roadways, now represented by respondents 4 to 8 (hereafter referred to as R-4 to R-8) for Rs. 54,500. Case of R-l as made out in the plaint, is that he owns and possesses an apple orchard from which he supplies apple boxes for marketing to Delhi and other places in India. The apple boxes are sent in trucks to the marketing places through forwarding agents to the commission agents and are insured with the Public Undertaking Insurance Companies. On 3.9.1988, R-l approached R-2 for forwarding his 350 apple boxes and the latter approached the predecessor in interest of R-4 to R-8 for arrangement of truck and consequently R-3 agreed to take the consignment from Dalash to Delhi vide Bilty Nos. 007691 and 007692 which were signed by R-2 as forwarding agent and the consignment was taken by R-3. It was agreed between R-l and R-2 that the consignment be insured with the appellant and was so insured by R-2. The consignment of apple boxes which was sent to SFC, Delhi never reached the consignee. It was learnt that the consignment was unloaded by the predecessor in interest of R-4 to R-8 at Kalka and was then loaded in truck owned by R-3 and the truck met with an accident near Shahbad on 5.9.1988, whereby all the apple boxes were completely damaged. R-l rushed to the spot and was informed of the total destruction of the apple. R-l then served predecessor in interest of R-4 to R-8 with a legal notice through counsel, but of no avail and copy of the notice was endorsed to R-2, who sent a legal notice to the appellant but the claim of R-l had not been settled, despite R-2 having approached the appellant on several occasions. It is claimed that the total loss suffered because of the destruction of the apple boxes is Rs. 52,500 and in addition to it, R-l incurred expenses in the sum of Rs. 2,000 on account of frequent travels from Dalash to the offices of the appellant and respondents R-2 to R-8 for settlement of claim. It is averred that the appellant and R-2 to R-8 are jointly and severally liable to make good the aforesaid losses suffered by the R-l. Hence the suit for a decree in the sum of Rs. 54,500.

3. The appellant, R-2, R-3 and predecessor in interest of R-4 to R-8 contested the suit. The appellant in its written statement, raised the preliminary objections that the apple boxes were not insured by it or its agent and R-l never approached it for insurance of the apple boxes and, thus, there was no contract between R-l and the appellant, that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that the claim is barred by limitation and is defective for want of particulars of insurance policy. On merits, it was averred that R-2 was not the agent of the appellant nor he was competent to act on behalf of it and no policy was issued in favour of R-l. It has further been claimed that only the owner of goods could procure insurance policy and not the forwarding agent and that the suit had in fact been filed in collusion with R-2, who procured endorsement on the policy of insurance. The occurrence of the truck carrying the apple boxes with accident has been denied. However, it is admitted that R-2 sent an application dated 5.9.1988 to the Senior Manager of the appellant intimating that the truck had met with an accident and the apple boxes had been damaged. On receipt of the applicati