The main legal point established in the judgment is that the carrier's liability under the Carriers Act, 1865 is that of an insurer, and the carrier is liable for financial loss due to non-compliance with the agreed terms and conditions of delivery.

Sudip Ahluwalia, J.

This Appeal has been preferred against the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Karnal in Civil Appeal No.126 of 2012 dated 3.9.2015, vide which the original Judgment & Decree passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Karnal in Civil Suit No.RBT-45/1 of 2010 dated 29.5.2012 in favour of the present Appellant/Plaintiff were upheld.

2. Background of the matter is that the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff had filed the Suit for recovery of Rs.27,30,169.58 P against the Appellant as well as Respondent/Defendant No.2, in which its contention was that the said Respondent had been procuring medicines from the plaintiff from time to time. The plaintiff company was the consignment agent and M/s Roma Pharma was the stockist of M/s Organon (India) Ltd. In the month of August, 2006, as per the order of defendant no.2, plaintiff entrusted a consignment comprising of 80 cases containing medicines worth Rs.20,71,614.60 against bill no. MHY-10887 dated 28.8.2006 raised in the name of M/s Roma Pharma, Rohtak for transportation from Karnal to Rohtak on self basis to the Appellant/Defendant No.1, who issued LR/GR no.6259 dated 31.8.2006 in token of receipt of consignment for transportation to Rohtak. On the same day, another consignment comprised of five cases containing medicines worth Rs.1,42,272.00 was also handed over to Appellant for transportation from Karnal to Rohtak against LR/GR No.10496 dated 31.8.2006. M/s Roma Pharma (Respondent No.2) was required to pay the amount of bills to the plaintiff company on or before 15.10.2006 and then to take delivery of the goods from defendant No.1, but the defendant No.2 M/s Roma Pharma, neither paid the amount of bills to the plaintiff company for about five months nor obtained the buyers copy of the invoices from the plaintiff company and the goods continued to be in the power and possession of the Appellant, who was under obligation to return the goods to the plaintiff company, since the common carrier cannot misappropriate the goods and in case of loss or injury to the goods, would be liable to pay the costs of the goods to the consigner. In the month of February, 2007, the Respondent No.2 remitted a sum of Rs.7.00 lacs through Bank Draft dated 5.2.2007 for adjustment in its account and also acknowledged the liability to pay a sum of Rs.18,74,362/- to the plaintiff company. On 28.8.2006, apart from the above mentioned two consignments, medicines of the value of Rs.99,403.20, Rs.99,403.20, Rs.99,403.20 and Rs.63,685.44 were also sent to the said Respondent No.2 against the order placed by it vide bill No.10888, 10889 and 10890, and 10891 which were duly received by that Respondent. Although the plaintiff company maintained that defendant No.1 was liable to account for the goods entrusted to it for transportation from Karnal to Rohtak and not delivered to defendant No.2 as per the instructions of plaintiff company, yet even assuming that the said defendant No.1/Appellant had delivered the goods of Rs.22,13,886.60 to defendant No.2 qua which defendant No.2 issued LR No.6259 and LR No.10496 dated 31.8.2006, still both the Defendants remained liable to pay Rs.18,74,258.43 to the plaintiff and this amount was worked out after adjustments of all the amount remitted by defendant No.2.

3. Further averment of the Respondent/Plaintiff was that vide letter dated 29.5.2007, it requested the Appellant to arrange re-booking of the above mentioned two consignments and to deliver back the goods to the plaintiff company at Karnal. On 29.5.2007, Branch Manager of the plaintiff company personally visited the office of the Appellant to deliver letter dated 29.5.2007, but the Appellant's Manager was not available, and so the Manager of the plaintiff company came back. On 1.6.2007, again Manager of the plaintiff company visited the office of the Appellant and delivered letter dated 29.5.2007, and the Appellant while acknowledging the receipt of the documents att