Back
R. SUBRAMANIAN AND R. SAKTHIVEL
Villavarayar & Son – Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.678 of 2004 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.805 of 2004 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
1. The defendants in O.S.No.678 of 2004 and O.S.No.805 of 2004 are on appeal, aggrieved by a decree granted by the Trial Court, directing payment of a sum of Rs.9,93,631/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization in O.S.No.678 of 2004 and for a sum of Rs.13,94,200/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization in O.S.No.805 of 2004.
2. The suits came to be filed by the respondents namely, the Insurer and the Consignor of the goods namely, cotton yarn on the basis that loss has occurred while the goods were in the custody of the carrier namely, the appellant herein. The Insurance Company, having indemnified the Consignor had obtained a letter of subrogation, authorizing it to claim the comp
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 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 liability of a common carrier for the loss or damage of property is absolute unless there is a special contract limiting the liability, and the burden of proving absence of negligence is on the c....
The court ruled that failure to provide notice as mandated by Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865, renders the suit not maintainable.
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 damages cannot be limited by an expired agreement, and negligence on the part of the carrier establishes full liability for the loss.
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 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.
Liability for damages from stevedoring operations is extinguished after one year under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, regardless of acknowledgment of liability.
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
