Back
M. G. PRIYADARSINI
A. B. C. India Limited – Appellant
Versus
New India Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
M.G. Priyadarsini, J.
This Second Appeal is filed by defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2002 passed in A.S.No.215 of 2001 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2001 passed in O.S.No.4836 of 1998 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Thus, the present Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of trial Court as well as first Appellate Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the appellant/defendant to file the present appeal, are as follows:
i) Plaintiff No.2 purchased 320 colour picture tubes valued at Rs.14,31,197.82 paise and the same was entrusted by M/s. JCT Electronics to the defendant for carriage and to deliver the consignment in good condition from Chandigarh to Hyderabad but damage occurred to 18 colou
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 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....
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 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 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 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.
Section 10 of the Carriers Act requires notice of loss but does not apply to non-delivery claims; payment of freight does not negate liability for lost goods.
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.
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....
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
