Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4784
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. – Appellant
Versus
PATEL ROADWAYS (P) LTD. – Respondent
AFA 69 2002
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA), SRI.P.V.BABY, SRI.JOSHY THANNICKAMATTAM
A surveyor's report detailing loss assessment in goods transport can be relied upon as a valid basis for claims under an insurance policy.
Headnote:
Insurance - Goods Transport - Insurance Act Section List - The court addressed the short delivery and damage of goods transported, relying on the surveyor's report for loss assessment under the Insurance Act, ultimately awarding plaintiffs the full claimed amount.
Fact of the Case:
Goods belonging to plaintiffs were transported by the defendant carrier from Cochin to Calcutta. One bundle was short delivered and the rest were water damaged, assessed at a loss of 15% according to a surveyor's report.
Issues: Whether the losses as assessed in the surveyor's report should be accepted and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the full amount claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the surveyor's report, being undisputed by the carrier, provided a valid basis for the claim, warranting the plaintiffs' entitlement to the full claimed amount.
Final Decision: The decree of the trial court is set aside; plaintiffs awarded `24,490/- with interest and costs.
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
The plaintiffs are the appellants. The goods belonging to the second plaintiff were transported from Cochin to Culcutta by defendant carrier. The goods were insured with the first plaintiff insurer. It was not disputed that out of 200 bundles of consignment, one bundle was short delivered and balance materials weighing 9950 Kgs. were water damaged, the extent of damage being 15% of the goods' value. Such loss assessment has been made in Ext.A3 surveyor's report. The said surveyor's report had essentially been relied on by the carrier while issuing Ext.A5, to record the remarks as per the consignee. Therefore, the acceptance of Ext.A3 is not in dispute yet.
2. The trial court dismissed the suit. The learned Single Judge in first appeal granted a decree for `1,600/- as against the plaintiffs' claim of `24,490/-. In fact, Ext.A14 even contains an offer of the carrier that they are prepared to pay 10% of the loss caused. While the plaintiffs cannot be tied down to that, the fact of the matter remains that even the learned Single Judge granted amounts lesser than the conceded amount.
3. Having regard to the fact that surveyor's report is the assessment of the loss made in terms of the provisions of the Insurance Act , we find that there is no reason to disbelieve its contents particularly, for, the existence of that report cannot be disputed by the carrier, going by the entries in Ext.A5.
4. Having perused the surveyor's report and the rationale and basis of the quantification of damages at `24,490/-, we see that the damages assessed at 15% of the value of the goods comes to `23,700/-
and the value of one bundle of rubber comes to `790/-.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned decree of the trial court and judgment of the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside and pave way for the appropriate decree in favour of the plaintiff.
In the result, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and the decree of the trial court are set aside and the plaintiffs are granted a decree for recovery of `24,490/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of suit till recovery with proportionate costs in the suit, in the first appeal and in this appeal.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE
