Common carriers are liable for short delivery due to negligence under the Carriers Act, and terms limiting liability may not be enforceable if inadequately notified to the other party.

1. This appeal is preferred by original defendants challenging the judgement and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 16,252.06/- together with, interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation and also awarding the costs of the suit from the defendants.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs in the trial court are as under:
Plaintiff No.1 is a well known manufacturer of farm machinery and pumps in India and plaintiff No. 2 is an Insurance company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The defendants inter alia carry on business of transporting for hire, goods in their vehicles from one place to another all over the country and are common carriers within the meaning of Carriers Act III of 1865. One National Pipes and Tubes Co. Ltd., at Calcutta was instructed by Plaintiff No. 1 to supply high - tensile brass rods of various descriptions, sizes, quantities and values mentioned in the various orders placed by the Plaintiffs in the said company. Plaintiff No.1 also instructed the said National Pipes and Tubes Co. Ltd., to send the said goods by road from Calcutta through the defendants who were the common carriers. Accordingly the said National Pipes and Tubes Co. Ltd., entrusted the contracted rods of the total value of Rs. 1,05,030.22 to the defendants in May and June, 1967. Along with the said goods three challans of various dates were handed over to the defendants. There is no dispute regarding the defendants having received these challans from the said National Tubes and Pipes Co. Ltd. The Plaintiffs' further case is that the defendants did carry the rods entrusted by the said Company in order to deliver them to the plaintiffs at Kirloskarwadi. However, defendants ultimately short delivered to the plaintiffs the said rods and therefore, plaintiff No. 1 addressed a notice in writing dated July, 5, 1967 setting out the price of the short delivered goods to the defendants. The plaintiffs further stated in their plaint that defendants were requested either to deliver the balance of the goods short delivered or to pay the sum of Rs. 29.033.46 plus proportionate freight and other incidental charges to the first plaintiff. It seems that defendants thereafter delivered part of the goods which were short delivered to plaintiff No. 1. However, even defendants had admitted that in all 53 rods were short delivered to plaintiff No.1. All these goods were already insured by plaintiff No.1 with plaintiff No. 2. Plaintiff No.2 are the insurers of the aforesaid consignment. The amount of Rs. 16,252,06 was the value of the short delivered consignment of goods and therefore, plaintiff No.1 asked plaintiff No. 2 to pay the amount which plaintiff No. 2 did pay and thereafter plaintiff No. 1 had passed in favour of plaintiff No. 2 a letter of subrogation dated February 17,1968, Plaintiff No. 2 has thus stepped into the shoes of plaintiff No.1 as a result of the document i.e. the letter of subrogation and therefore, plaintiff No. 2 will be entitled to be reimbursed to the extent of the damage caused due to the short delivery of the 53 rods on account of the negligence of the defendants. Both the plaintiffs, therefore, are jointly and severally entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 16,252.06 from the defendants. It was further stat