Bangalore District Court
The New India Assurance Co vs M/S Nitco Roadways Pvt. Ltd on 4 April, 2022
KABC010195942017
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY: (CCH-56)
: Present :
Sri. Krishnamurthy R. Padasalgi,
B.Sc., LL.M., HDSE
LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 4TH day of APRIL 2022
O.S. No. 5443/2017
PLAINTIFF 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.,
LTD.
Claims Hub, No.2-B, Unity Building, Annex,
Mission Road,
Bangalore - 560 027, represented by its
Regional Manager.
2. M/S SARA SUOLE PVT. LTD.
Survey No.62, Site No.13, 6th Cross,
N.S.Palya, BTM Layout, Off Bannerghatta
Road,
Bangalore - 560 076.
Represented by the plaintiff No.1 as Power
of Attorney Holder / Subrogee.
(By Sri. C.r. Ravishankat, , Adv.)
Versus
DEFENDANTS M/S NITCO ROADWAYS PVT. LTD.
No.2/22, Opp: BMTC, 8th Cross, Siddaiah
Road, Bangalore - 560 027.
Represented by Manager.
(By Sri.MAK.Adv
O.S.No.5443/2017
2
Date of Institution of Suit 09.08.2017
Nature of the suit Suit for recovery
Date of commencement of 17.07.2019
recording of evidence.
Date on which the 04.04.2022
judgment was
pronounced.
Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
04 07 25
(Krishnamurthy R. Padasalgi),
LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.5443/2017
3
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of recovery of money on subrogation.
1. The plaintiff No.1 is the Public Sector Undertaking carrying on insurance business such as motor, marine, fire and miscellaneous insurance, having registered offence at M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai and a claims Hub / Regional Office at Mission Road, Bangalore. The 2 nd plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and dealing in footwear manufacturing machines and allied activities having its registered office at BTM Layout, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore The defendant is a common carrier engaged in the business of transporting goods from one place to another. The 2 nd plaintiff had dispatched a consignment of leather and footwear related inputs and footwear manufacturing machine from its factory at Bangalore to the consignee M/s Core Fashions Inc. Dehradun, Uttarakhand State. The said consignment properly packed was entrusted to the defendant for transportation from Sikkim to Delhi State.
The 2nd plaintiff obtained an open marine insurance O.S.No.5443/2017 4 policy from the 1st plaintiff covering all their dispatches and receipts for transit risk such as shortage damages, non-delivery etc. The 1 st plaintiff has issued a policy No.67020221140500000004 for the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015. The consignment reached the place of destination and the defendant delivered the consignment to the consignee. The damage to the consignment was caused to the consignment during the transit while in the custody of the defendant. The 2 nd plaintiff informed the 1st plaintiff about the damage to the consignment and made claim. The plaintiff appointed Surveyor to make spot inspection and the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.7,16,324/-. On scrutiny of the claim of the 2nd plaintiff suffered loss at Rs.7,68,257/- . The defendant was responsible for the loss which he is liable to pay. On such settlement of the claim, the 1st plaintiff has been subrogated to the rights of the 2nd plaintiff to recovery the amount from the defendant carrier and also holds a power of attorney and letter of subrogation to pursue the recovery proceedings against the defendant. Hence, the suit.
O.S.No.5443/2017 5
2. After registration of the suit summons was issued to defendant. The defendant appeared through its counsel and filed written statement.
3. The sum and substance of the written statement of the defendant that the suit is not maintainable as the goods have been delivered to the consignee and the consignee has taken delivery of the same. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant. This court has no jurisdiction to try this suit.
The suit is barred by time. The goods have already delivered at Dehradun and accepted the delivery without demur, no notice of survey was caused to the defendant nor the survey was conducted in presence of the defendant and therefore, the suit is not maintainable.
There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, for all these reasons, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suits.
4. On the basis of the above contentions, the following issues were framed, which reads thus:
ISSUES
1. Whether the suit is in time?
O.S.No.5443/2017 6
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,68,257/- from the defendant along with 18% rate of interest?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that after the delivery of the goods by the defendant, he had received a delivery consignment challan from concerned?
5. Whether the defendant proves that the delivery of goods and damaged caused at the time of transit?
6. Whether the plaintiff proves that he supplied the goods to the defendant were intact at the time of transit?
7. Whether there is condition precedent between the parties that if anything caused damaged the goods at the time of delivery whose responsibility lies upon?
8. What order the parties are entitled?
5. On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff no.1 got examined his official as P.W.1, and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. The defendant got his official examined as DW1 Thereafter the case posted for arguments.
6. Heard the counsel for plaintiffs and defendant.
Perused the plaint, written statement, oral and documentary evidence.
O.S.No.5443/2017 7
7. The above issues are answered as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative
Issue No.2: In the Negative
Issue No.3: Partly in Affirmative
Issue No.4: In the Affirmative
Issue No.5: In the Affirmative
Issue No.6: In the Affirmative
Issue No.7: As per Carriers act on
the defendant
Issue No.87: As per final order, for the
following.
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 & 2: The defendant has contended
that the suit is filed beyond limitation and there is no jurisdiction. The counsel for the defendant for the purpose of jurisdiction has relied upon the Delivery copy of the consignment bill which is at Ex.P1, which contains "Subject to jurisdiction of Jammu courts" . But in this case it is not subject to exclusive jurisdiction of Jammu courts. Had that been the intention the words would have been "subject to jurisdiction of Jammu Courts only". In addition to that DW 1 who happens to be the Area Manager of defendant company admits in his cross examination that at para No.4 that their company is having office in Bangalore and business is carrying in O.S.No.5443/2017 8 Bangalore and therefore, cause of action to enforce the the subrogation by the Insurance company is well within the territorial jurisdiction. More over exclusion of jurisdiction is between the plaintiff No.2 and the carrier any dispute in that regard arises, but not against the third party which is insurance company and with regard to limitation is concerned the suit is well within time only and only general contention is taken by the defendant.
Hence, issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative and Issue No.2 is in the Negative.
9. ISSUE NO 4. TO 7: In this case, the plaintiff No.1 is the insurance company and the plaintiff No.2 is M/s Sara Suole Pvt. Ltd. Has consigned the goods through the defendant and the defendant is carrier subrogation of contract is asked by the insurance company after settling the marine insurance policy with the plaintiff No.2.
10. The PW1 Deputy Manager of the Insurance company deposed that the company of the plaintiff NO.2 engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of foot and leather and dispatched the consignment of O.S.No.5443/2017 9 leather and footwear through common Carrier defendant to the consignee M/s Core Fashions Inc., Dehradun, Uttarakhand State, with properly packing and again entrusted it to the defendant transporter. Further deposed by him that the risk of consignment was covered by the plaintiff No.1 by issuing Police No. 67020221140500000004 for the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015. The goods during the transport damaged which has resulted in loss. Therefore, the plaintiff No.2 claimed it from the insurance company and after he assigning his rights by way of subrogation by executing indemnity bond an contract of authorization this suit is filed.
11. Ex.P2 is the consignment receipt. Ex.P3, P4 and P5 are the letters received by the consignee mentioning the damages. The survey was conducted by the Surveyor by name Sri.Amarpreet Singh Anand, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Dehradun who has given survey report at Ex.P7 along with photographs. Common Carrier- defendant issued damage receipt at Ex.P8 to the extent of invoices value which is attached therein.
O.S.No.5443/2017 10
12. In the cross examination DW 1 nothing worthwhile was elicited to show that there was no damage to the goods or disputing the subrogation. Contract of subrogation is found at Ex.P14 and P15. By the basis of the survey report, the policy was discharged and payment was made as per Ex.P13. It is suggested in the cross examination of PW 1 that due to improper handling of the plaintiff No.2 goods are damaged. Even DW 1 who happens to be the Area Manager of defendant has deposed that goods were transported and loaded to their vehicle were heavy goods and could not have been loaded manually. Hence, with the help of machine and crane those were loaded. This is not at all pleaded in the written statement. He further deposed that a prudent transporter would have never transport machineries containing Oil in it with leather goods.But here defendnat has accepted and transported the goods, without Goods were intack and properly packed he would not have transported and transpoter will have proper knowledge of loading and unloading goods for transportation based on the goods.
O.S.No.5443/2017 11
13. By the trend of evidence adduced by the DW 1 and cross to PW 1 it is claimed as if due to negligence of the plaintiff NO.2 in packing and loading the damages is caused. in that connection, it is worthwhile to refer Section 9 of The Carriers Act 1865.
Plaintiffs, in suits for loss, damage, or non-delivery, not required to prove negligence or criminal act.--In any suit brought against a common carrier for the loss, damage or non-delivery of 1[goods (including container, pallets or similar article of transport used to consolidate goods) entrusted] to him for carriage, it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff to prove that such loss, damage or non- delivery was owing to the negligence or criminal act of the carrier, his servants or agents.
14. In a ruling reported in (2000) 4 SCC 91 - PATEL ROADWAYS LIMITED VS BIRLA YAMAHA LIMITED, at para No.31, 32, 46 and 47 it is held as under.
31. Coming to the question of liability of Common Carrier for loss of or damage to goods, the position of law has to be taken as fairly well settled that the liability of a carrier in India, as in England, is more extensive and the liability is that of an insurer. The absolute liability of the carrier is subject to two exceptions; an act of God and a special contract which the carrier may choose to enter with the customer.
32. In Sarkar on Evidence (Fifteenth Edition 1999) at page 1724 under the heading "Negligence" it is stated "As a rule negligence is not to be presumed; it is rather to be presumed that ordinary care has been used. The rule does not apply in the case of common carriers, who, on grounds of public policy, are presumed to have been negligent if goods O.S.No.5443/2017 12 entrusted to their care have been lost or damaged or delayed in delivery" (Ross v. Hill, 2 CB 890; Jones s 15). The law will conclusively presume that the carrier has been guilty of a negligence unless he can show that the loss or damage was occasioned by what is technically called the "act of God", or by King's enemies."
46. This decision is of little assistance to the appellant since the contentions raised by them before us herein were not considered by this Court therein.
47. From the conspectus of views taken in the decisions of different High Courts noted above it is clear that the liability of a common carrier under the Carriers Act is that of an insurer. This position is made further clear by the provision in section 9, in which it is specifically laid down that in a case of claim of damage for loss to or deterioration of goods entrusted to a carrier it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish negligence. Even assuming that the general principle in cases of tortious liability is that the party who alleges negligence against the other must prove the same, the said principle has no application to a case covered under the Carriers Act. This is also the position notwithstanding a special contract between the parties. These principles have held the field over a considerable length of time and have been crystallized into accepted position of law. No good reason has been brought to our notice to persuade us to make a departure from the accepted position. Therefore we reiterate the position of law noticed above. The consequential position that follows is that the contention of Shri Ashok Desai learned senior counsel, that the respondents herein having failed to establish negligence on the part of the appellant, their claim for damages should be rejected, cannot be accepted.
O.S.No.5443/2017 13
15. Therefore, negligence cannot be criteria to non suit the plaintiff insurance company. The counsel for the defendant has submitted that subrogation could not have been made and wrongly subrogation is made by the plaintiff No.2 without verifying it. In that connection it is worth to mention a ruling reported in (2010) 4 SCC 114
- ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANIZATION VS M/S CHARAN SPINNING MILLS (P), wherein the subrogation and impact and validity of the same and its importance in the eye of law, it is held at para 10, 11, 15.1 to 15.3 as under.
"10. The assured entrusted the consignment for transportation to the carrier. The consignment was insured by the assured with the insurer. When the goods were damaged in an accident, the assured, as the consignor- consumer, could certainly maintain a complaint under the Act, seeking compensation for the loss, alleging negligence and deficiency in service. The fact that in pursuance of a contract of insurance, the assured had received from the insurer, the value of the goods lost, either fully or in part, does not erase or reduce the liability of the wrongdoer responsible for the loss. Therefore, the assured as a consumer, could file a complaint under the Act, even after the insurer had settled its claim in regard to the loss.
11. A contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity. The loss/damage to the goods covered O.S.No.5443/2017 14 by a policy of insurance, may be caused either due to an act for which the owner (assured) may not have a remedy against any third party (as for example when the loss is on account of an act of God) or due to a wrongful act of a third party, for which he may have a remedy against such third party (as for example where the loss is on account of negligence of the third party). In both cases, the assured can obtain reimbursement of the loss, from the insurer. In the first case, neither the assured, nor the insurer can make any claim against any third party. But where the damage is on account of negligence of a third party, the assured will have the right to sue the wrongdoer for damages; and where the assured has obtained the value of the goods lost from the insurer in pursuance of the contract of insurance, the law of insurance recognizes as an equitable corollary of the principle of indemnity that the rights and remedies of the assured against the wrong-doer stand transferred to and vested in the insurer. The equitable assignment of the rights and remedies of the assured in favour of the insurer, implied in a contract of indemnity, known as `subrogation', is based on two basic principles of equity :
(a) No tort-feasor should escape liability for his wrong;
(b) No unjust enrichment for the injured, by recovery of compensation for the same loss, from more than one source. The doctrine of subrogation will thus enable the insurer, to step into the shoes of the assured, and enforce the rights and remedies available to the assured.
15.1) In the first category, the subrogation is not evidenced by any document, but is based on the insurance policy and the receipt issued by the assured acknowledging the full settlement of the claim relating to the loss. Where the insurer has reimbursed the entire loss incurred by the assured, O.S.No.5443/2017 15 it can sue in the name of the assured for the amount paid by it to the assured. But where the insurer has reimbursed only a part of the loss, in settling the insurance claim, the insurer has to wait for the assured to sue and recover compensation from the wrongdoer; and when the assured recovers compensation, the assured is entitled to first appropriate the same towards the balance of his loss (which was not received from the insurer) so that he gets full reimbursement of his loss and the cost, if any, incurred by him for such recovery. The insurer will be entitled only to whatever balance remaining, for reimbursement of what it paid to the assured.
15.2) In the second category, the subrogation is evidenced by an instrument. To avoid any dispute about the right to claim reimbursement, or to settle the priority of inter-se claims or to confirm the quantum of reimbursement in pursuance of the subrogation, and to ensure co-operation by the assured in suing the wrongdoer, the insurer usually obtains a letter of subrogation in writing, specifying its rights vis-`a-vis the assured. The letter of subrogation is a contractual arrangement which crystallizes the rights of the insurer vis-a`-vis the assignee. On execution of a letter of subrogation, the insurer becomes entitled to recover in terms of it, a sum not exceeding what was paid by it under the contract of insurance by suing in the name of the assured. Even where the insurer had settled only a part of the loss incurred by the assured, on recovery of the claim from the wrongdoer, the insurer may, if the letter of subrogation so authorizes, first appropriate what it had paid to the assured and pay only the balance, if any, to the assured.
15.3) The third category is where the assured executes a letter of subrogation-cum- assignment enabling the insurer retain the entire amount recovered (even if it is more than what was paid to the assured) and giving an option to sue in the name of the assured or to O.S.No.5443/2017 16 sue in its own name. In all three types of subrogation, the insurer can sue the wrongdoer in the name of the assured. This means that the insurer requests the assured to file the suit/complaint and has the option of joining as co-plaintiff. Alternatively the insurer can obtain a special power of Attorney from the assured and then to sue the wrongdoer in the name of the assured as his attorney.
The assured has no right to deny the equitable right of subrogation of the insurer in accordance with law, even whether there is no writing to support it. But the assured whose claim is settled by the insurer, only in respect of a part of the loss may insist that when compensation is recovered from the wrongdoer he will first appropriate the same, to recover the balance of his loss. The assured can also refuse to execute a subrogation-cum-assignment which has the effect of taking away his right to receive the balance of the loss. But once a subrogation is reduced to writing, the rights inter-se between the assured and insurer will be regulated by the terms agreed, which is a matter of negotiation between the assured and insurer.
16. It is held in ILR 1987 KAR 2871 - INTER STATE TRANSPORTS VS. PFIZER LTD. at para 11 as under.
11. The third issue will have to be considered first since, in the light of the provisions of the Carriers Act, on which the defendant relies, it is for the defendant to establish that it had taken sufficient case while discharging its duties as carrier. Though, the Carriers Act was not in force on the date of the accident, in the light of the decision of this Court in O.S.No.5443/2017 17 Hercules Insurance Co. & Anr. v. Sri Ganesh Transport Co. & Anr., 1969 (1) Mys. L. J. 316 the principles of that Act are applicable as principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The effect of Sections 6 and 8 of the Act is, that a common carrier is liable for loss and damage caused due to its negligence or misconduct of its agents or servants, and that liability cannot be limited by contract. Therefore, on the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, it is futile for Mr. Prabhu to contend that the liability for any damages due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the defendant, its employees, servants and agents is excluded by a clause more particularly, specified in the G.C. Note. In that case also, a similar clause found in the G.C. Note was considered by the Division Bench and it took the view that condition that "the goods to be sent at owner's risk and that no responsibility would be taken in case of fire or accident" do not and cannot protect a common carrier if the damages flowed from its negligence or misconduct. So, it was incumbent on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence or misconduct on its part. But the contention of the Learned Counsel for the defendant is, that the plaintiffs having pleaded negligence in the plaint, the initial burden was cast on the plaintiffs and only when such burden had been properly discharged by the plaintiffs, it was defendants' turn to rebut that evidence. He relied on certain observations made by the Division Bench in the very same decision to sustain his plea. The Division Bench observed in paragraph 21 of its Judgment as follow :--
"Where the plaintiffs allege a specific case of negligence, the burden is on them to make out a prima facie case of specific act of negligence. The law on the subject has been succintly stated in the American Jurisprudence, 2d., Volume 14, Second Edition, at page 132, paragraph 618 thus :
O.S.No.5443/2017 18 "In an action against a common carrier based upon a contract of carriage to recover damages for loss of or injury to goods during the course of transportation, the plaintiff need neither plead nor prove negligence on the part of the carrier, since the carrier, as an insurer of the safety of the goods, is liable for loss or damage thereto regardless of negligence. The plaintiff is aided in his case by the presumption of negligence which arises when he establishes that the goods were delivered to the carrier in good condition, and that they were delivered at destination in damaged condition, or were not delivered. If, however, the plaintiff alleges specific acts of negligence, he then has the burden of proving such negligence."
It was not incumbent on the plaintiffs to plead that the damage was caused on account of negligence but having alleged I that the damage was caused on account of specific acts of negligence, it was not necessary for the defendant to plead that the damage was on account of the inevitable accident ; it was sufficient for him if he denied that there was any negligence."
In our view, this observation of the Division Bench does not support the contention of the defendant. In that case the defendant called for particulars of negligence alleged to have been committed by it and in response to the application calling for particulars, the plaintiff therein had attributed a specific act of over-loading and rash and negligent driving which resulted in the :--
"Breaking of the main spring leaf of the front spring near the front end and the result was that the front axle went back on its rear shackle making the lorry turning to the right of the road and the driver could not have been able to control the vehicle because the lorry dragged to the right end one wheel went over the Irish Bridge and the truck had toppled and the transformer was thrown off the full weight."
O.S.No.5443/2017 19 On these facts, this Court took the view that the plea of negligence alleged against the defendant was not proved. But, in the instant case, the plaintiffs had not alleged any specific acts of negligence. They had only pleaded that the defendant was a common carrier and it had not acted in a prudent manner and the damage and loss of goods in question was caused by rash and negligent acts of the defendant, its servants and agents. Therefore, a duty was cast on the defendant to prove that its servants and agents had acted prudently and not negligently. The defendant having admitted that the vehicle met with an accident, it was incumbent on the defendant to prove further that, that accident was due to reasons beyond its control. No evidence was forthcoming on behalf of the defendant on this point. The driver was the best witness, who could have explained the circumstances leading to the skidding of the vehicle about which there is no dispute but he was not examined. The representative of the defendant who was examined as D.W.I had no personal knowledge about the accident and he had spoken only on the basis of the records. According to him, he went to the spot with the driver and saw the vehicle resting on the left side on its wheels. The lorry had skidded on the road and the road was under repair. It is elicited from this witness that -
"The driver told him (Manager Joseph) that due to heavy rain the tyre skidded on the road, under repair, I do not know whether he said truth or falsehood, Manager did not ascertain anything more."
This is all the evidence on behalf of the defendant as regards pant of negligence and care. From this evidence it is clear that the lorry had turned turtle after skidding. Whether it was not due to the negligence of the driver or whether he pad taken sufficient care or whether he as a skilled driver O.S.No.5443/2017 20 could have prevented the skidding is not forthcoming from the records, because, the driver was not examined. But, it is common knowledge that the best way of avoiding a skid on a wet road is to switch off the ignition. But that evidence is not available on record since the driver was not examined, In the circumstances, the plaintiffs were not bound to prove any further facts in order to establish their claim against the defendant as a common carrier. D.W. 1 has also said that he does not know whether the driver has spoken the truth for falsehood ! Therefore, on this type of evidence, it is not possible to accept the plea of Mr. Prabhu that the plaintiffs had not established negligence on the part of the defendants, Its servants or agents.
17. In a ruling reported in AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 281 - UNION OF INDIA VS. SRI SARAD MILLS LTD. It is held at par 32 and 33 as under.
32. The application of the doctrine of subrogation to policies of marine insurance is based upon the fundamental principle that the contract of insurance contained in a marine policy is a contract of indemnity, and of indemnity only.
33. The expression "subrogation", in relation to a contract of marine insurance is no more than a convenient way of referring to those terms which are to be implied in the contract between the assured and the insurer to give business efficacy to an agreement whereby the assured, in the case of loss against which the policy has been issued, shall be fully indemnified, and never more than fully indemnified.
18. Therefore, common Carrier transportation on fact of subrogation is liable to pay damages to the consignor.
O.S.No.5443/2017 21 The negligence is of the transporter is totally alien. And by above rulings the insurance company has stepped into the shoes of the plaintiff no.2 , on the basis of settlement of dues and consequent upon subrogation can claim against the common carrier.
19. The counsel for the defendant submitted that survey report given by the Surveyor is not binding on them. It is contended by him that the survey is conducted behind the back of the defendant and no notice was issued in that connection. It is worthwhile to note that survey report at Ex.P7. Besides, noting damages caused to surveyor at Ex.P32 as observed by the surveyor that the matter was discussed at length with plaintiff No.2 M/s Sara Suole Pvt. Ltd. And M/.s Core Fashions Inc. as held in a ruling reported in PFIZER Ltd.
Case the liability of the Carrier cannot be limited the contract.
20. It is contended by the counsel for defendant that no survey was conducted in their presence,no survey report was furnished to defendant but the survey was conducted in presence of representative of Consignor O.S.No.5443/2017 22 and Consignee and surveyor was appointed by the insurance company. And based upon the survey report the claim was settled and by he law of subrogation defendant is liable to make good for the claim settled by the insurance company.
Hence, issue No.4, 5, 6 & 7 are answered in the Affirmative.
21. ISSUE NO.3: The claim is settled and by the discharge voucher at Ex.P8 discloses that insurance company totally paid Rs.7,68,257/- which the defendant is liable to pay insurance company. Having regard to the prevailing rate of lending interest the defendant shall pay interest at 6% p.a. from the date of subrogation till realization.The interest shall run from the date of subrogation till realization.
Hence, issue No.3 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
22. ISSUE NO.7: For the above all the reasons, the following.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with costs.
O.S.No.5443/2017 23 The defendant M/s Nitco Roadways Pvt. Ltd. Shall pay Rs.7,68,257/-(Rupees Seven lakhs sixty eight thousand two hundred and fifty seven only) with interest at 6% p.a. to the insurance company
- plaintiff No.1 - M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. From 07.05.2015 till its realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on the 4th day of APRIL 2022).
(Krishnamurthy R. Padasalgi), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
PW1 Smt.Anitha T.N. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT: DW1 Sri.Satpal Verma
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P1 Consignment Note
Ex.P2 Certified copy of Cargo Bill
Ex.P3 Estimate Loss letter
Ex.P4 Letter dated 20.10.2014
Ex.P5 Reminder
Ex.P6 Marine Claim Form
O.S.No.5443/2017
24
Ex.P7 Survey report dated 01.12.2014
Ex.P8 Damage Certificate date 26.03.2015
Ex.P9 Legal Notice
Ex.P10 Postal receipt
Ex.P11 Letter dated 22.12.2014
Ex.P12 Copy of Insurance policy
Ex.P13 Client Discharge voucher
Ex.P14 Indemnity Bond
Ex.P15 Letter of Subrogation.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
NIL (Krishnamurthy R. Padasalgi) LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.No.5443/2017 25 Judgment passed and pronounced in the open court.
The operative portion of the order reads as under.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with costs.
The defendant M/s Nitco Roadways Pvt. Ltd. Shall pay Rs.7,68,257/- (Rupees Seven lakhs sixty eight thousand two hundred and fifty seven only) with interest at 6% p.a. to the insurance company - plaintiff No.1 - M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd.
From 07.05.2015 till its realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Krishnamurthy R. Padasalgi), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.