The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defendant could not be held liable due to the Act of Enemies of State, and therefore the suit was dismissed.

1. This is a Suit filed by the plaintiffs as against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,78,094/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. (being the commercial transaction) from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and for costs.

2. Thefacts giving rise to the filing of this Suit as stood exposited from the Plaint would run thus:

.(i) The first plaintiff entrusted certain automobile spare parts with the defendant, who is a public carrier within the meaning of the Carriers Act, 1865 at Polambakkam Cheyyar Taluk, Tamil Nadu, for being transported to M/s. M.V. Axies Ltd., Jamshedput on 30.05.2003. The goods were got insured by P1 (insured) with P2 (the insurer) – the Insurance Company.

(ii) It so happened that the goods were not received by the consignee, whereupon it turned out that the goods were not handed over by the defendant to the consignee. Thereupon Statutory notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, for which the defendant gave unconvincing reply. The first plaintiff approached the second plaintiff, the insurer, whereupon the insurer probed into the matter. On getting Letter of Subrogation and Special Power of Attorney, executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the second plaintiff, the latter paid a sum of Rs.10,78,094/- to the former. As such, the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff had correspondences with the defendant, which evoked no positive response from the defendant. The plaintiffs have filed this Suit seeking the following reliefs:

.(a) to direct the defendant to pay the second plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,78,094/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date hereof to the date of realization in full being a commercial cause, and

.(b) for costs of the Suit. (extracted as such)

3. Denying and refuting, challenging and impugning, the averments/allegations in the plaint, the defendant filed the written statement, the gist and kernel of it would run thus:

1. This Court is having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this Suit as the entrustment of the goods by P1 with the defendant took place outside Chennai.

2. The Suit also is barred by limitation in view of Article 72 of the Limitation Act, which contemplates only a year’s time to file a Suit, whereas the Suit has been filed beyond time.

3. The defendant, being a public carrier, is not liable to pay any compensation/damages due to Act of God or Act of Enemies of State.

4. Here, the correspondences, which the defendant had with the plaintiffs would clearly demonstrate and display, that owing to the murder of the driver and the cleaner of the vehicle, which carried the goods, there was non-delivery of the consignment on the part of the defendant to the consignee.

5. The Suit claim is outside the scope of the conditions of policy of Insurance, which emerged between the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff. As such, the Letter of Subrogation and the Special Power of Attorney executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the second plaintiff are not valid in the eye of law.

6. The defendant being a public carrier is not liable in view of the special circumstances involved in this case.

Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the Suit.

4. My learned Predecessor based on the pleadings framed the following issues:

1. Whether this Court is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Suit?

2. Whether the Suit is barred by limitation in terms of Article 72 of the Limitation Act?

3. Whether the defendant is absolved from liability on account of Act of God or Acts of Enemies of States?

4. Whether there was a valid policy of insurance covering the risk resulting in the loss while the consignment was in the custody of the defendant-common carrier?

5. Where there was a valid Letter of Subrogation and Special Power of Attorney in favour of the second plaintiff facilitating them to file and maintain a Suit?

6. Whether there was a valid notice