Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, TIRUMALA DEVI
National Insurance Co Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Gati Desk to Dest Cargo – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Tirumala Devi Eada, J.)
This is an appeal filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 14.08.2006, passed in O.S.No.177 of 1999 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short “the trial Court”).
2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent herein is the defendant before the trial Court and the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court is that the plaintiff No.1 is National Insurance Company Ltd., which is into the business of General Insurance and plaintiff No.2 is engaged in the manufacture of bearings, which has obtained an insurance policy from plaintiff No.1 vide policy No.150301/012/D/44/00003/R/ 95-96. The defendant is a transportation agency. The said insurance policy is obtained to cover the risk of manufactured items of the plaintiff No.2 by road. The plaintiff No.2 has entrusted 135 packets containing 21,600 pieces of bearings as per the invoice No.960581, dated 21.09.1996 which are in good condition to the defendant for the safe carriage and del
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 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 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.
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 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 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.
A common carrier is liable for loss unless exempted by a special contract or act of God, which must be proved by the carrier.
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
