Back
R. N. MANJULA
Sankaranarayanan – Appellant
Versus
Parry Confectionery Limited, By its Power Agent and Subrogee M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2009 passed in A.S.No.293 of 2008 on the file of the learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.5180 of 2004 by the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. Heard Mr.Christopher Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
3. The appellant is the defendant against whom the plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of money. The Trial Court has decreed the suit and the First Appeal preferred by the defendant before the First Appellate Court has also confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court by dismissing the First Appeal. Now the defendant has filed this Second Appeal.
4. The facts pleaded in the plaint are as under:
The first plaintiff is a limited liability Company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its Office at Chennai and it is being represented through its Power Agent M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited. The second plaintiff is a limited liability Company incor
The first plaintiff can maintain a suit through the second plaintiff as a power agent despite discrepancies in the policy number under the Letter of Subrogation.
The court held that the carrier is not liable for damages when the loss occurs due to an accident not caused by negligence, affirming the binding nature of subrogation rights under the Carriers Act.
The carrier is absolutely liable for loss of goods entrusted to them during transport, and the plaintiffs are not required to prove negligence if they can establish the loss and the entrustment of go....
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.
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 ....
Common carriers are liable for short delivery due to negligence under the Carriers Act, and terms limiting liability may not be enforceable if inadequately notified to the other party.
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.
Subrogation allows insurers to recover amounts paid to the insured while the insured retains rights to deficiencies; the court clarified distinctions between assignment and subrogation-cum-assignment....
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.
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
