Back
N. ANAND VEKATESH
BIC Logistics Ltd. , Kilpauk – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Rane (Madras) Ltd. , rep. by Power Agent/Subrogee United India Insurance Company Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in S.A.No.249 of 2014: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.08.2013 of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.383 of 2009 thereby dismissing the appeal and also dismissing the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2008 of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.3143 of 2006.
Prayer in S.A.No.250 of 2014: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.08.2013 of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.416 of 2009 thereby dismissing the appeal and also dismissing the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2008 of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.3143 of 2006.)
Common Judgment:
The 1st defendant is the appellant in both the second appeals.
2. The 1st plaintiff despatched their consignment of automobile components at Pondicherry and it was entrusted to the 1st defendant, who is the carrier, for safe carriage and delivery at Pune. The goods were delivered to the carrier on 14.03.2003.
3. The grievance of the 1st plaintiff is that the 1st defendant committed breach an
The carrier is strictly liable for the loss of consignment unless they can prove that it was not due to their negligence or criminal act, as per Sections 8 and 9 of the Carriers Act 1865.
A common carrier is liable for damages only if caused by negligence or criminal acts; the presumption of negligence can be rebutted by evidence showing that damage was due to an accidental event.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the carrier to take necessary care and caution to safeguard consignment goods, as outlined in the Carriers Act and Marine Insurance ....
The carrier is strictly liable for loss of goods in transit, and once loss is established, the burden shifts to the carrier to disprove negligence.
A common carrier is not strictly liable for transit loss unless it is proven that the loss arose from the negligence or criminal act of the carrier, and a consignor cannot validly subrogate rights to....
The insurer can sue a common carrier for damages even without notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act if the claim arises from loss or injury to goods.
The carrier's liability for damages cannot be limited by an expired agreement, and negligence on the part of the carrier establishes full liability for the loss.
Common carriers are strictly liable for losses unless they can prove an excepted peril; the burden of proof is on the carrier to demonstrate that due diligence was exercised.
The Carrier's liability for the loss, damage, or non-delivery of goods entrusted to it is not limited or affected by any public notice unless there is a special contract signed by the owner of the pr....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
