Public carriers are liable for damages and must ensure safe delivery of goods entrusted for transport.

1. This appeal is filed against the judgement and decree dated 13-12-91 in O. S. No. 694 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, in and by which the learned Additional Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit claim and accordingly, dismissed the suit.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
3. On 23-11-1985, the second plaintiff, consigned 80 cases of Royan Yarn, from their industry at Sirumugai, Mettupalayam to their depot at Dayananda Nagar, Amristar and entrusted the said goods worth Rs. 3, 71,191-50 with the defendant a public carrier for being transported from Sirumugai to Amristar through lorry. The defendant, being a public carrier, agreed to and is even otherwise bound under law to deliver the goods safely to the place of delivery at Amristar. The goods were consigned under the defendants LR No. 2865487 dated 23-11-85.
4. The defendant failed to effect safe and due delivery of the goods at the plaintiff's depot at Amritsar. Out of the 80 cases, only 45 cases were in good condition. The remaining 35 cases were loose by packed, damaged, mixed up and water damaged condition and the contents were short in some of the cases when the goods arrived at Amristar. The second plaintiff had the above goods insured with the first plaintiff under Policy No. 41310/0/OM/11361/OPL. Therefore on the arrival of the goods at Amritsar, the first plaintiff appointed a licensed surveyor to assess the loss occurred due to the damaged condition/short delivery of the goods. Their surveyor assessed the net amount of loss at Rs. 81,928/-. The defendant has issued an open delivery certificate No. KTP/AMR/ODC/02/86 dated 22-2-86 showing the damaged condition/short delivery of the goods.
5. As the defendant has not effected safe delivery of the goods at Amritsar, the second plaintiff claimed the total value of loss sustained by them due to the short delivery/damage of goods of Rs. 75,792.20 from the first plaintiff by enforcing the insurance policy mentioned supra. The first plaintiff being bound under law to pay the insured (the second plaintiff) accordingly paid a sum of Rs. 75,792.20 to the second plaintiff and thus discharged its obligation and claim made under the policy.
6. The insured (2nd plaintiff) having a right of action against the defendant for recovery of the total value of the loss due to damaged/short delivery of goods, constituted, the first plaintiff as their power agent, enabling the first plaintiff to file a suit in a Court of law against the defendant for the recovery of the claim monies on their behalf and in their name and given valid discharge by executing a power of attorney in that behalf. The second plaintiff has also executed a letter of subrogation, in first plaintiff's favour, enabling the first plaintiff to have the right of reimbursement from the defendant by making a claim against the defendant.
The plaintiffs state that since the second plaintiff has already been reimbursed the loss by the first plaintiff, the second plaintiff is being added only as a formal party in this action by way of abundant caution.

4. In spite of the repeated requests, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the suit amount. Hence the suit.

5. The defendant states as follows :
"The consignment was carried with utmost care and caution throughout the journey and delivery was accepted at the destination on 12-12-1985 without any demur. The purported taking of an open delivery certificate from the branch dated 22-2-1986 to support the claim for insurance, cannot affect the defendant's right in any manner. The defendant is not therefore under any obligation to pay any dam