Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.G. Priyadarsini, J.
M/s. A.B.C. India Limited - Appellant
Versus
M/s. New India Insurance Company Limited and another - Respondents
S.A.No.43 OF 2003
Decided On : 23-04-2024
Carriers - Damage to Goods - Indian Carriers Act, 1865 - Sections 10, 8, 9 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Indian Carriers Act, emphasizing the necessity of notice for claims against common carriers and established that the insurer can sue despite the absence of notice, provided the claim arises from loss or injury.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sued the defendant for damages to a consignment of picture tubes during transport, claiming negligence. The defendant denied responsibility, arguing that proper notice was not given as required under the Indian Carriers Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had issued the required notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act and that the defendant failed to prove lack of negligence in the damage of the goods.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs issued the notice as mandated under Section 10 of the Carriers Act and whether the defendant was liable for the damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had fulfilled the notice requirement and that the defendant, as a common carrier, bore the burden of proving that the damage was not due to its negligence.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' decisions.
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 colour picture tubes. The defendant had not taken proper care and caution while transporting. Immediately Plaintiff No.2 informed the defendant about the damage and a notice was also issued. After receipt of the notice, the defendant issued damage certificate dated 15.12.1995 stating that 18 colour picture tubes were delivered in damaged condition.
ii) The plaintiff No.2 has appointed a surveyor to assess the damage and submitted the report on 09.12.1995. The plaintiff No.1 settled claim of the plaintiff No.2 for a sum of Rs.36,579/-on 01.01.1996 and obtained valid receipt. In consideration of the settlement the plaintiff No.2 also executed a letter of subrogation and Special Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff No.1 transferring all their rights authorizing to file a suit against the defendant. In pursuance of the letter of subrogation and special power of attorney the plaintiff No.1 is authorized to file the present suit against the defendant for recovery of the damaged consignment. The plaintiff No.1 received acknowledgment of the registered letter from the defendant. Hence, the present for recovery of Rs.44,605/-.
b) In reply to the plaint averments, the defendant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and the brief averments of the written statement are as under:
i) The defendant denied that it had not taken proper care and caution while transporting the consignment and in fact the defendant is no way concerned with the reasons for the damage. The receipt of letter issued by the plaintiff No.2 on 03.06.1995 and damage certificate issued by the defendant is also false. The damage certificate was issued on 15.12.19963 after a long gap of more than six months. In case any letter was addressed by the plaintiff that was done in the month of December but not as stated on 03.06.1995. The transaction will fall under the law covered by Indian Carriers Act and Accordingly to Section10 of the Act, a notice within a period of six months from the date of incident is a must. No notice was served under Section 10 of the Carriers Act.
ii) The defendant is not a party to the said survey and the survey was done after six months in the absence of the defendant is placed before the Court. There was no damage caused due to negligence of the defendant. There is no cause of action for the suit and there was no payment of any money towards damage by this defendant to plaintiff No.2, hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
c) During the court of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of defendant, DW1 was examined but no documentary was adduced.
d) The trial Court after considering the rival contentions, decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.44,605/- wi
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
