Bangalore District Court
The New India Assurance vs M/S. Tci Freight on 1 March, 2017
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2017.
PRESENT:
Sri PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA, B.A.,LL.B.(Spl.),
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.6294/2010
PLAINTIFFS : 1. The New India Assurance
Company Limited,
DO-IX, Infantry Road,
Bengaluru - 1, represented
by its Senior Divisional
Manager.
2. M/s. Pace Power System
Private Limited, Plot
No.327A, 1 st Phase,
Kumbalgodu, Mysore
Highway, Bengaluru - 74,
represented by power of
attorney holder plaintiff
No.1.
(By Sri C.R. Ravishankar, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. M/s. TCI Freight, (A Division
of Transport Corporation of
India Limited), B-47, KIDDC
Industrial Area, Kumbalgodu,
Bengaluru - 560 074
represented by its Manager.
Cont'd..
-2- O.S. No.6294/2010
2. The Divisional Manager,
M/s. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, DO-3, No.4-
E-14, Aaad Bhavan,
Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi - 110 055.
(Defendant No.1 by Sri A.B.
Harkunikar, Advocate)
(Defendant No.2 by Sri E.S.
Indresh, Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 04-09-2010
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : For recovery of damages.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 02-12-2015
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 01-03-2017
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 6 years, 5 months, 27 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
An&/- Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants 1 and 2 to pass judgment and decree directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.10,68,890/- together with Court cost and Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.6294/2010 current interest at 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as under:-
Plaintiffs have contended first plaintiff is a public sector undertaking carrying on insurance business such as motor, marine, fire and miscellaneous insurance having its office at Mumbai and Bengaluru. Second plaintiff is a company engaged in manufacture and sale of electronic and electrical power systems and allied products having its office at Bengaluru. Defendant No.1 is a common carrier engaged in the business of transporting goods from one place to another to whom the goods in the instant case were entrusted for transportation. It is submitted second plaintiff has despatched ten numbers of 25 KVA PMUS and 30 numbers of servo controllers for 7.5 KVA LCU packed in CB cartons and wooden crates from its factory at Bengaluru to the consignee M/s. Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Limited, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa. The said consignment properly packed was entrusted to the defendant for transportation from Bengaluru to Bhubaneshwar. Defendant accepted the consignment for transporting the same for safe and timely delivery to the consignee at Bhubaneshwar and issued lorry receipt dated 29-09-2009. It is submitted second plaintiff had obtained an open marine insurance policy from the first plaintiff covering all their despatches and receipts for transit risk such as shortage, damage, non-delivery etc., Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.6294/2010 in transit. First plaintiff has issued policy. Second
plaintiff had declared the consignment for insurance coverage as required under the policy condition.
It is submitted the truck carrying the consignment met with an accident in Vikrampuram village, Srikalulam district, Andhra Pradesh and the consignment was damaged. Further, the consignment was drenched due to rains. The consignment reached the place of destination on 08-10-2009. The consignee noted the damages in the consignment and refused to accept the consignment, hence the consignment was re- booked from Bhubaneshwar to Bengaluru and delivered to the second plaintiff in damaged condition. Second plaintiff has noted the damages in the consignment and for that defendant has issued damage certificate to the second plaintiff.
It is submitted second plaintiff informed the first defendant about the damages caused to the consignment and made a claim in terms of the policy and claimed value of the consignment which was damaged. Survey was conducted and surveyor who conducted detailed survey submitted report. On scrutiny of the claim, second plaintiff has paid Rs.10,68,890/- including the survey fees and full and final settlement of the claim. It is submitted that defendant to whom the consignment was entrusted for transportation was reasonable to carry the goods and delivered the same to the consignee safely. The Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.6294/2010 defendant is liable for any loss or damage to the goods in transit. Plaintiffs on account of damages to the consignment by the defendant suffered loss in a sum of Rs.10,68,890/- which the defendant is liable to pay. Lastly, it is submitted on such settlement of claim, first plaintiff has been subrogated the rights of the second plaintiff to recover the amount from the defendant carrier and also holds a power of attorney to pursue the recovery proceedings against the defendant. With this submission, plaintiffs prayed to decree the suit.
3. Initially, plaintiff has filed suit against only defendant common carrier and thereafter, defendant No.1 common carrier filed impleading application to implead the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company and accordingly, said Insurance Company impleaded as defendant No.2.
4. In pursuance of summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through their respective Counsel and filed their separate written statement. The brief facts of the written statement of the defendant No.1 are as under -
Defendant No.1 pleads ignorance with regard to entrustment of the consignment by plaintiff No.2 to the defendant common carrier under lorry receipt dated 29- 09-2009 for being transported and delivered at Bhubaneshwar. Defendant No.1 pleads ignorance with regard to issuance of insurance policy by plaintiff No.2 Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.6294/2010 in favour of plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.1 has admitted with regard to entrustment of the suit consignment by plaintiff No.2 for transportation from Bengaluru to Bhubaneshwar. Defendant No.1 also admitted truck carrying the consignment met with an accident. Defendant No.1 further contended the said accident is an unfortunate incident and it is beyond the control of the driver. It is submitted alleged damages caused because of poor packing by plaintiff No.2, considering the nature of consignment and distance that was to be covered from Bengaluru to Bhubaneshwar. Defendant No.1 has also taken contention alleged survey stated to have been conducted, they have been conducted behind the back and without notice of the defendant and the said report prepared in collusion between surveyor and the consignee for wrongful gain.
It is submitted defendant has also taken Carrier Legal Liability Policy from M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited i.e., defendant No.2 with coverage value of Rs.3,00,00,000/- to cover all types of transit risks with its validity period from 03-12-2008 to 02-12- 2009. Under the terms of the said policy, defendant No.2 M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited is liable to pay if any decree is passed. With this submission, defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.2 are as under -
Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.6294/2010 Defendant No.2 pleads ignorance defendant No.1 is a common carrier engaged in the business of transporting goods. It is submitted original policy for Carriers Legal Liability covering the insurance was issued by D.O. No.3, New Delhi in favour of M/s. Transport Corporation of India at Gurgaon address on 04-12-2008 and the period of insurance coverage was for period from 03-12-2008 to 02-12-2009 in favour of Transport Corporation of India and therefore, any contractual obligation between this defendant and said insured Transport Corporation of India is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is submitted defendant No.2 never issued any policy covering liability in favour of defendant No.1 as claimed by the plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 denied subject consignment LR of defendant No.1 herein is covered under policy No.272200/48/2009/2263. It is submitted defendant No.2 has not issued any policy to defendant No.1 as it is a separate entity. In view of the above, suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is liable to be dismissed. With this submission, defendant No.2 prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. On the basis of the above said pleadings, this Court has framed the following -
ISSUES (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for a Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.6294/2010 sum of Rs.10,68,890/- by way of damages from the defendants jointly and severally along with interest rate of 18% per annum for damaged consignment during transit and negligence of defendant?
(2) What order or decree?
7. In order to substantiate the averments of the plaint, Manager of the first plaintiff insurance company himself examined as P.W.1 and got documents marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.11 and closed his side.
8. When case posted for defendants' evidence, Senior Supervisor in Legal Department of first defendant Company himself examined as D.W.1 and got documents marked as per Ex.D.1. Deputy Manager of the second defendant Company himself examined as D.W.2 and got documents marked as per Exs.D.2 and D.3.
9. I have heard arguments from both sides. At the time of argument, Advocate for plaintiff relied the decisions.
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.6294/2010
ISSUE No.1 - Affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 - As per final order,
for the following -
REASONS
11. ISSUE No.1 : It is the case of the plaintiffs
plaintiff No.1 is insurer, plaintiff No.2 is insured, defendant No.1 is a common carrier and defendant No.2 is insurer of defendant No.1. It is also case of the plaintiff second plaintiff had despatched the suit consignment through defendant No.1 common carrier to the consignee at Bhubaneshwar, Orissa State and consignment was securely packed entrusted to the defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 has undertaken for safe and timely delivery to the consignee at Bhubaneshwar. It is the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff No.2 had obtained an open marine insurance policy and accordingly, first plaintiff had issued policy and second plaintiff had declared the consignment for insurance coverage. Further case of the plaintiff, truck carrying consignment met with an accident at Vikrampuram village, Srikakulam district, Andhra Pradesh State and the consignment was drenched due to rains. Since the consignee has refused to accept the consignment, the consignment was re-booked from Bhubaneshwar to Bengaluru and delivered to the second plaintiff in a damaged condition. It is the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff No.2 has lodged claim to plaintiff No.1 on the Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.6294/2010 basis of the insurance policy and plaintiff No.1 on the basis of survey report, settled the claim of the plaintiff No.2. After settlement, plaintiff No.2 has executed letter of subrogation and power of attorney to recover the said amount from the common carrier i.e., defendant No.1. It is also case of the plaintiff, since defendant No.1 has taken contention that it has taken carrier legal liability policy from defendant No.2, therefore defendant No.2 being insurer is liable to pay damages.
12. It is the case of the defendant No.1 it is not in dispute with regard to entrustment of suit consignment by plaintiff No.2 and it is also not in dispute the lorry which was transporting the consignment to Bhubaneshwar met with an accident and in fact the said accident is beyond the control of the driver of the vehicle. It is also case of the defendant No.1 surveyor has conducted survey behind his back, therefore defendant No.1 common carrier is not liable to pay damages. Lastly, defendant No.1 has contended since it has taken carrier legal liability police, if any liability on defendant No.1 common carrier, defendant No.2 is liable to pay damages.
13. It is case of defendant No.2, no doubt defendant No.1 company had issued policy for carrier's legal liability covering insurance in favour of M/s.
Transport Corporation of India, Gurgaon if any contractual obligation between defendant No.2 and the insured is subject to terms and conditions of the policy Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.6294/2010 and therefore, defendant No.2 never issued any policy covering liability in favour of defendant No.1 as claimed by the plaintiff.
14. On careful perusal of the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence and on the basis of settled position of law, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiffs have proved Issue No.1 in their favour.
15. In the present case, it is not in dispute defendant No.1 is a common carrier accepted the suit consignment for transportation from Bengaluru to Bhubaneshwar. It is also not in dispute plaintiff No.2 being owner of the suit consignment entrusted the consignment to defendant No.1 common carrier after obtaining open marine insurance policy from the first plaintiff. It is also not in dispute the truck carrying consignment met with an accident in Vikrampuram village, Andhra Pradesh and consignment was drenched due to rains. Further, it is not in dispute since consignee i.e., M/s. Quippo Telecom Infrastructure, Bhubaneshwar has refused to receive the consignment, the said consignment was re-booked from Bhubaneshwar to Bengaluru and delivered to second plaintiff in damaged condition. Further, it is not in dispute plaintiff No.2 being owner of the consignment lodged his claim to plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.1 being insurer indemnified the claim of the plaintiff No.2 on the basis of the survey report. It is also not in dispute after indemnifying the claim by plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.2 Cont'd..
- 12 - O.S. No.6294/2010 has executed letter of subrogation and power of attorney in favour of plaintiff No.2 authorising plaintiff No.1 to claim damages from defendant No.1 common carrier.
16. The only point for consideration before this Court is whether defendant No.1 common carrier is liable to pay damages as prayed by the plaintiff and whether defendant No.2 is insurer of defendant No.1 and whether defendant No.2 is liable to indemnity defendant No.1. It is settled principles of law that liability of common carrier for loss and damage caused by negligence or misconduct cannot be limited by contract. The effect of Sections 6 and 8 of the Carriers Act, 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. Further, it is settled principles of law that even if the goods is sent at owner's risk and that no liability would be taken in the case of fire or accident, do not and cannot protect a common carrier if the damage flowed from its negligence or misconduct. Lastly, it is settled principle of law that it was incumbent on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence or misconduct on its part.
17. In support of the above said settled position of law, Advocate for plaintiff has relied the Division Bench ruling of our Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 1987 KAR 2870 in a case Interstate Transport -versus- P. Fizer Limited. In my considered view, principle laid down in Cont'd..
- 13 - O.S. No.6294/2010 the above said decision exactly applicable to the case on hand. In the above said decision, it is held its duty was cast upon the defendant to prove that its servants and agents had acted prudently and not negligently. Further, it is held in case defendant having admitted the vehicle met with an accident it was incumbent on the defendant to prove that accident was due to reasons beyond its control. In the present case also, though defendant No.1 common carrier has taken contention truck carrying the suit consignment met with accident, but the defendant has not proved that accident was due to reasons beyond its control. Admittedly, defendant No.1 has not adduced evidence of truck driver to establish accident was beyond his control.
18. Advocate for plaintiff has also relied the decision of Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2005 KAR 3403 in a case Basavaraj Yellappa Pundi -versus- The National Insurance Company Limited and another. In the above said decision, it is held Section 10 of the Carriers Act would indicate that any claim made by the plaintiff for loss, damage or non-delivery, the plaintiffs are not required to prove negligence or criminal act in any suit filed by them against the common carrier claiming compensation, damage, etc. Further, it is held the moment the goods are not delivered to the consignee as per the contract between the consignor and the carrier, carrier becomes liable to pay any loss caused on account of non-delivery of the goods. Even principle Cont'd..
- 14 - O.S. No.6294/2010 laid down in the above said decision is exactly applicable to the case on hand.
19. Advocate for plaintiff has also relied unreported decisions rendered in (1) R.F.A. 252/1980 in a case Union of India by its Southern Railways -versus- M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, (2) R.F.A. No.1523/2003 in a case M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited and another -versus- M/s. Galaxy Commercial Fleet. In my considered view, principle laid down in the above said decisions are exactly applicable to the case on hand. It is not the case of the defendants plaintiff No.2 being owner has not complied Section 10 of the Carriers Act, therefore plaintiff No.2 is not entitled to file this suit and under such circumstances, principle laid down in the above said decisions are exactly applicable to the case on hand.
20. Apart from this contention of the plaintiff is supported by oral evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 in his evidence has reiterated averments of the plaint and in support of its contention, P.W.1 has produced copy of the invoice marked as per Exs.P.2 and P.3, marine claim form marked as per Ex.P.4, marine survey report marked as per Ex.P.5, claim letter dated 12-01-2010 marked as per Ex.P.6, opinion given by surveyor and loss assessor marked as per Ex.P.7, claim bill marked as per Ex.P.8, office copy of the notice of loss marked as per Ex.P.9, letter of subrogation executed by plaintiff Cont'd..
- 15 - O.S. No.6294/2010 No.2 in favour of plaintiff No.1 marked as per Ex.P.10 and settlement intimation voucher marked as per Ex.P.11. In my considered evidence of P.W.1 and contents of Exs.P.1 to P.11 helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issue No.1. Though P.W.1 cross- examined at length, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to discard his evidence. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, it has suggested as per contents of the policy, it covers transit risk, shortage, damage, non-delivery in transit. No doubt P.W.1 has admitted he has no idea distance between Bengaluru and Bhubaneshwar, but this admission not fatal to the case of the plaintiff. No doubt P.W.1 has admitted lorry which was transporting the consignment met with an accident, even this admission not fatal to the case of the plaintiff, because it is the case of the plaintiff since lorry met with an accident, the consignment was drenched due to rains. It is not the case of the defendant common carrier immediately after lorry met with accident, it has tried its level best to protect the suit consignment for safe delivery to the consignee. Even defendant common carrier has not established accident was beyond control of the driver. Admittedly, defendant common carrier has not produced any documents to show driver of the truck has been acquitted on the ground accident was beyond the control of the driver. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has proved Issue No.1 in his favour.
Cont'd..
- 16 - O.S. No.6294/2010
21. Supervisor in legal department of defendant No.1 common carrier himself examined as D.W.1 and in his evidence, he has deposed consignment was arranged to be taken by them to destination, but consignee by seeing external damage to the consignment refused to take delivery of the same and re-booked the said consignment to Bengaluru for delivery to the second plaintiff consignor. Further, he has deposed alleged survey stated to have been conducted by Mr. Bhasker Associates, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Bangalore was conducted behind their back and they had non notice of alleged survey, therefore survey report is not binding on them. Lastly, he has deposed if any liability of defendant No.1 common carrier, it is to be indemnified by defendant No.2 on the ground defendant No.1 common carried obtained carrier legal liability policy and it was valid as on the date of damage of the consignment.
22. First and foremost contention of defendant No.1 that survey conducted behind its back has no substance at all. Defendant No.1 being common carrier was well within the knowledge that suit consignment was damaged due to accident and drenched due to rains. It was obligatory on the part of the defendant No.1 to participate in the survey conduced by surveyor and loss assessor. Instead of doing so, defendant No.1 common carrier has taken frivolous contention only to escape from the liability. In the cross-examination, Cont'd..
- 17 - O.S. No.6294/2010 D.W.1 has specifically admitted Ex.P.9 is a notice of loss issued by plaintiff No.2 to defendant N.1 common carrier. He has also admitted defendant No.1 company has not replied to said notice. As per contents of Ex.P.9, plaintiff No.2 has informed that loss has been assessed for Rs.11,00,000/- and the same is liable to be paid by defendant No.1 common carrier. Even after receipt of Ex.P.9, defendant No.1 common carrier has not replied to said notice. Hence, it is presumed that defendant No.1 was well within the knowledge of survey conducted by Mr. Bhasker Associates. D.W.1 also admitted case has been registered against driver of the truck with regard to accident. This being admission of D.W.1, it is not helpful to the case of defendant No.1 common carrier to resist the claim of plaintiff Nos.1 and
2.
23. Now, this Court has to see whether defendant No.2 being insurer of defendant No.1 common carrier is liable to pay damages as prayed by the plaintiffs. It is the case of the defendant No.1 it has taken carrier legal liability police from M/s. Oriental Insurance Company under policy No.272200/48/2009/2003 for coverage value of Rs.3,00,00,000/- to cover all types of transit risks with its validity period from 03-12-2008 to 02-12- 2009. It is the case of the defendant No.1 as per terms of the policy, insurer is ultimately liable to pay such claim or decretal amount. Hence, if at all suit were to be decreed, it is second defendant who will be liable to Cont'd..
- 18 - O.S. No.6294/2010 pay such decretal amount. No doubt D.W.1 has not
produced copy of the policy issued by defendant No.2, but defendant No.2 company has produced said policy through D.W.2 which is marked as per Ex.D.3. D.W.2 being Deputy Manager of defendant No.2company in his evidence deposed original policy for carriers legal liability was issued by DO-3, New Delhi in favour of M/s. Transport Corporation of India, Gurgaon for a period from 03-12-2008 to 02-12-2009. Further, he has deposed defendant No.1 mentioned in the notice is M/s. Transport Corporation of India Freight Limited which is a division of M/s. Transport Corporation of India. It is not the case of the defendant No.2 immediately after receipt of notice by its insured i.e., defendant No.1, it has replied to defendant No.1 stating that at no point of time it had issued policy in favour of Transport Corporation of India Freight. Even it is not the case of the defendant No.2 it has intimated to its insured i.e., defendant No.1 policy issued as per Ex.D.3 it is not covered the goods of M/s. Transport Corporation of India freight as a common carrier. When defendant No.1 has specifically contended M/s. Transport Corporation of India freight is a division of M/s. Transport Corporation of India when Ex.D.3 issued to cover the risk to an extent of Rs.3,00,00,000/-, without any hesitation it is to be held defendant No.2 being insurer of defendant No.1 common carrier is liable to pay damages as prayed by the plaintiffs. Further, in the Cont'd..
- 19 - O.S. No.6294/2010 cross-examination D.W.2 has specifically admitted as under -
". . . . . . . ¤r3 ¥Á°¹AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ mÁæå£ïì¥sÉÆÃmïð PÁ¥ÉÇðgÉõÀ£ï D¥sï EArAiÀiÁ EzÀÄ ¥ÉgÉAmï PÀA¥À¤ CAzÀgÉ ¤d. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀÉÃgÉAmï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ r«µÀ£ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÉ CAzÀgÉ ¤d. . . . . . . ."
". .¤r3 ¥Á°¹AiÀÄ eÉÆvÉUÉ D ¥Á°¹AiÀÄ ¤§AzÀs£U É À¼À AiÀiÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è CAzÀgÉ ¤d. . ."
These are the admissions of D.W.1 helpful to the case of the plaintiff to recover damages from defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally. No doubt D.W.2 in the cross- examination has denied defendant No.1 company gave proposal with the policy which it has obtained covers to all the divisions, but on perusal of Ex.D.3, it disclosed carrier legal liability policy issued in the name of the parent company i.e., M/s. Transport Corporation of India, this Court is of the opinion that defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay damages.
24. Plaintiff has sought damages of Rs.10,68,890/- with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum for damaged consignment. Admittedly, the alleged transaction is a commercial transaction. More over, plaintiff in order to claim damages along with interest at 18 per cent per annum adduced evidence of P.W.1. Though P.W.1 cross-examined at length, nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve his evidence.
Cont'd..
- 20 - O.S. No.6294/2010 Hence, plaintiffs are entitled for damages of
Rs.10,68,890/- along with interest at 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation.
25. Since plaintiff No.2 has executed letter of subrogation in favour of plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.1 is entitled to claim damages as prayed. Hence, my answer to above Issue is in affirmative.
26. ISSUE No.2 : For my reasons and discussion on the above Issue, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants is hereby decreed with cost.
Plaintiff No.1 is entitled to recover from the defendants jointly and severally a sum of Rs.10,68,890/- being the value of the consignment along with interest at 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation towards damages.
Defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff No.1 a sum of Rs.10,68,890/- being the value of the consignment with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till its realization towards damages within two months from today.
Cont'd..
- 21 - O.S. No.6294/2010 Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 1st day of March, 2017.) (PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Mariaraj 02-12-2015
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : Authorisation letter.
Exs.P.2 : Copies of invoices.
and P.3
Ex.P.4 : Marine claim form.
Ex.P.5 : Marine survey report.
Ex.P.6 : Claim letter dated 12-01-2010.
Ex.P.7 : Opinion given by surveyor and loss
assessor.
Ex.P.8 : Claim bill.
Ex.P.9 : Office copy of the notice of loss.
Exx.P.10 : Letter of subrogation executed by plaintiff
No.2 in favour of plaintiff No.1.
Ex.P.11 : Settlement intimation voucher.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : D. Somashekar Raju 07-11-2016 D.W.2 : Hilda Clara D'souza 06-12-2016 Cont'd..
- 22 - O.S. No.6294/2010
4.DOCUMENT MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Letter of authorization.
Ex.D.2 : Letter of authorization.
Ex.D.3 : Copy of insurance policy.
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..