Bangalore District Court
M/S. Somu And Co vs Sri. Giriraj M Kotian on 27 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE (CCH.25)
Dated This The 27th day of January 2015
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri.Pradeep S. Balikai, B.Com., LL.B (Spl.).,
C/C III Addl.City Civil And Sessions Judge (CCH-25)
Bangalore.
O.S.No.7311/2002
Plaintiff/s : M/s. Somu and Co.,
Somu Centre,
No.20, 29th Main, II Stage, BTM Layout,
Bengaluru- 560 076.
Reptd., by its General Manager Sri. K.Mani.
(By Sri Patil B.L. Advocate)
Vs.
Defendant/s Sri. Giriraj M Kotian,
Proprietor,
M/s. Gurudev Trans Lines,
Kottara Chowki, Ashoknagar Post,
Mangalore-575006.
(By Sri P.I.Bhat., Advocate)
Date of Institution: 30.10.2002
Nature of the suit : Recovery of Money
Date of recording
of the evidence : 17.1.2007
Date of Judgment : 27.1.2015
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
12 02 27
(Pradeep.S.Balikai)
C/C III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
2 O.S.No.7311/02
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.4,06,385/- with future interest, costs of the suit and such other reliefs for which the Plaintiff is entitled for.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as below:
Plaintiff is a Proprietary Concern dealing in Industrial and Pharmaceutical Chemicals. The suit is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff Company by its General Manager. The Plaintiff had entrusted the job of transporting 9490 Kgs of ISO PROPYL ALCOHOL to the defendant under Invoice no.0560 Dt.7.7.2001 valued at Rs.4,18,471-04 which was to be lifted from Mangalore Port and to be delivered to M/s. Sekhsaria Chemicals Ltd., Thane, Bombay. The defendant in turn had entrusted the said work to M/s. Eagle Tankers, Bombay. The material to be transported was lifted from Mangalore port through Tanker No.GJ 7X-9464 owned by M/s. Eagle Tankers i.e., the Sub-Contractor of the Defendant. The defendant received a Fax message on 21.7.2001 from the Consignee i.e., Sekhsaria Chemical Ltd., Thane, informing the Plaintiff that they have rejected the material since it contained 38.1% of water as 3 O.S.No.7311/02 against the standard limit of 0.02%. The Plaintiff immediately lodged a complaint with the defendant in this regard requesting the defendant to make good the value of the transported material i.e., Rs.4,18,471-04. Subsequently, they received a Debit Note from the consignee-M/s. Sekhsaria Chemicals Ltd., Thane dated 30.7.01 claiming a sum of Rs.16,939/- towards Octroi charges. The Sub- contractor of defendant-M/s. Eagle Tankers had lodged a complaint dated 30.7.2001 with the Police against the Driver of the Tanker/Mr. Mohammed Sadik. They came to know that the driver of the Tanker had removed the chemicals from the tanker and had mixed water in it and then had abandoned the vehicle and ran away. Even the defendant had wrote a letter to M/s. Eagle Tankers dated 1.8.01 to set right the damage caused to the Plaintiff company. Even on behalf of M/s. Eagle Tankers, an official by name Mr. Ram Kailash has given a Police complaint on 8.8.01 against the driver of the Tanker -Mr. Mohammed Sadik. Thereafter, the Plaintiff had informed M/s. Eagle Tankers on 11.8.2001 asking to dispose off the contaminated chemicals at Bombay itself. M/s. Trans Ocean Marine and General Survey Agencies, Bombay has given a detailed Report dated 1.10.2001 with regard to the contamination of the chemicals. 4 O.S.No.7311/02 Thereafter, they wrote a letter to the defendant on 29.12.2001 to arrange for the payment of Invoice amount of Rs. 4,18,471-04 plus Rs.16,939-00 towards Octroi charges and to settle the amount immediately. On 30.1.2002 M/s. Eagle Tankers had sent a D D for Rs.1,04,500-00 in favour of Plaintiff towards the contaminated material and in turn, on 6.2.02, the defendant sent the said DD to the Plaintiff. Thereafter, they addressed a letter to the defendant on 18.2.2002 to make good the balance amount of Rs.3,30,910/- and also sent a reminder on 22.5.02. However, the defendant did not come forward to settle the amount. Even they tried to claim the amount from the Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company declined to settle the claim amount. On 24.6.02, the defendant informed the Plaintiff Company that they are not responsible and the loss may be recovered from M/s. Eagle Tankers.
They got issued a Legal Notice to the defendant on 18.9.02 asking them to make good the amount of Rs.3,30,910/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the Invoice i.e., 7.7.2001. Instead of making payment of the claim amount, the defendant has given a false and untenable reply denying their liability. As such, the Plaintiff Company was constrained to bring the suit. An amount of 5 O.S.No.7311/02 Rs.3,30,910/- i.e., the Invoice amount, an amount of Rs.74,475/- with regard to interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of Invoice till the date of filing of the suit and Rs.1,000/- towards the Legal Notice charges; thus a total sum of Rs.4,06,385/- was due from the defendant. Despite several demands and issuance of Legal Notice, the said amount has not been settled by the defendant company. As such, the Plaintiff prays for a judgment and decree in its favour for recovery of Rs.4,06,385/- with interest, costs of the suit and also grant such other reliefs for which the Court deems fit and proper to grant to the Plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Upon issuance of the suit summons, the defendant has entered appearance through his Counsel and has filed the written statement on 17.10.2003. The defendant contends that the plaint averments are all false and frivolous one and plaintiff's suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and it has suppressed the true facts. The allegation of the Plaintiff that it has entrusted the job of transporting 9490 KGs of ISO PROPYL ALCOHOL to the defendant under the Invoice etc., as contended are all false and baseless. The defendant had arranged a transport contractor at the 6 O.S.No.7311/02 request of the Plaintiff concern on its say. A transport contractor by name M/s. Eagle Tankers, Mumbai was arranged to carry the chemicals from Mangalore Port to Thane, Mumbai on behalf of the Plaintiff Company. M/s. Eagle Tankers had taken the responsibility of transporting chemicals from Mangalore Port to Mumbai. As such, there is no subsisting contract between the Plaintiff concern and the defendant and on this ground alone, the Plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed. M/s. Eagle Tankers by its letter dated 30.7.01 admitted that during the transportation of chemicals, the driver had stolen the chemicals from the Tanker by filling water in the Tanker. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd., is the Insurer of the goods. As such, the Plaintiff can claim suit amount from the Insurer. In fact, the insurance surveyor by his Report dated 1.10.10 has stated that the loss is recoverable from the Insurer and the same must depend upon the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the Insurer has to make good loss to the Plaintiff but not the defendant. The invoice No.0560 dated 7.7.01 issued by the Plaintiff clearly discloses the mode of transport and the vehicle number in which the chemicals was transported. The invoice also discloses that the chemical was being transported in Tanker bearing 7 O.S.No.7311/02 Registration No. GJ 7x/9464 belonging to M/s. Eagle Tankers. The Report of the Analyst/ M/s. ITA Lab discloses the fact that the purity of the chemical was 91.75. As such, the claim of the Plaintiff could not be beyond 8.25%. Even the Surveyor has reported that water can be removed from the chemicals by processing. As such, Plaintiff company ought to have taken proper action to remove the water by processing. Subsequently, M/s. Eagle Tankers had sent a D D for Rs.1,04,500/- in favour of Plaintiff company which itself shows that M/s. Eagle Tankers have taken the responsibility of carrying the chemicals from Mangalore Port to Mumbai. As such, by implication also, M/s. Eagle Tankers took the responsibility of transportation of chemicals. Therefore M/s. Eagle Tankers alone are solely responsible to the Plaintiff. As the claim made is entirely covered by insurance the Plaintiff's claim against the defendant as made in the suit is not maintainable. It is false to allege that the Plaintiff has lodged a complaint with the defendant requesting the defendant to make good the value of the transported material. It is false to allege that the Plaintiff had received a Debit Note from the Consignee/M/s. Sekhsaria Chemicals Ltd., dated 30.7.01 claiming a sum of Rs.16,939/- towards Octroi charges. It is false to allege that 8 O.S.No.7311/02 the Plaintiff had written to the defendant on 29.12.01 to arrange for payment of the Invoice amount of Rs.4,18,471.04 and Rs.16,939 towards Octroi charges and to settle the long pending matter. The Legal Notice caused on behalf of Plaintiff Firm is suitably replied. The defendant is not at all liable to pay the suit claim amount. If the Plaintiff had any claim, it ought to have recovered or claimed from M/s. Eagle Tankers and the National Insurance Company Ltd. The transporter - M/s. Eagle Tankers had clearly admitted that during transit, the driver of the Tanker has committed theft of the chemical. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff ought to have proceeded against M/s. Eagle Tankers or claimed from the insurance company. M/s. Eagle Tankers and the National Insurance Company are the proper and necessary parties to the Plaintiff's suit. In fact the defendant is not at all a proper and necessary party to the suit. The Plaintiff's suit is required to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no cause of action against the defendant to file the suit and the cause of action shown in the plaint is false and fictitious. On the above grounds, the defendant has prayed for dismissing the Plaintiff's suit with exemplary costs. 9 O.S.No.7311/02
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed by the court:
1. Was 9490 Kg of ISO PROPYL Alcohal covered under invoice No.0560 Dt.7.7.2001 valued at Rs.4,18,471-04 ps. entrusted to defendant's sub-
contractor M/s. Eagle Tankers for being transported from Mangalore and delivered to M/s. Seekharia Chemicals Ltd., Thane, damaged during transit as alleged in para-4 of the plaint?
2. Is defendant liable to pay Rs.3,30,910/- towards balance value of goods damaged, to Plaintiff?
3. Is defendant liable to pay interest on the said value at 18% p.a.?
4. Is Plaintiff entitled to claim Rs.16,939/- by way of Octroi charges?
5. Does defendant prove that his only job was to arrange a transporter for transporting Plaintiff's goods to Thane from Mangalore, and his job ended on arranging transporter contractor - M/s. Eagle Tankers, Mumbai?
6. Is the said loss recoverable from Insurance Company?
7. Is suit bad for non-joinder of M/s. Eagle tankers and National Insurance Co.?
6. On behalf of the Plaintiff, its Accounts Executive has examined himself as P.W.1 and has relied on the documents produced as per Ex.P.1 to 23. The Proprietor of the defendant has 10 O.S.No.7311/02 been examined as D.W.1. No documents are marked for the defendant's side.
7. Heard Arguments.
8. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative Issue No.2: In the affirmative Issue No.3: In the affirmative Issue No.4: In the affirmative Issue No.5: In the negative Issue No.6: In the negative.
Issue No.7: In the negative for the following;
REASONS Issue Nos.1 to 4:
9. All these issues being inter-connected & inter-linked with each other these issues have been taken by me for common consideration in order to avoid repetition of appreciation of evidence adduced by both sides. Plaintiff company has brought this suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.4,06,385/- along with interest & costs of the suit etc. On behalf of the Plaintiff, its Accounts Executive & Special Power of Attorney holder has been examined as P.W.1. Ex.P.1 is the SPA produced in this case. P.W.1 states that he being the Accounts Executive working with the Plaintiff company, he is well acquainted with the facts of the case & 11 O.S.No.7311/02 he has been authorised to depose in the case. The Plaintiff is a Proprietary Concern dealing in Industrial & Pharmaceutical Chemicals. P.W.1 has reiterated the plaint averments in his evidence. He states that the Plaintiff company had entrusted the job of transporting 9490 Kgs of Iso Propyl Alcohol to the defendant under the Invoice No.0560 dated 7.7.2001 valued at Rs.4,18,471-04 ps. Ex.P.2 and P.15 are the Invoices produced in this regard. P.W.1 has further stated in his evidence that the goods were required to be lifted from Mangalore Port and to be delivered to M/s. Sekhsaria Chemicals Ltd., Thane, Mumbai. The defendant in turn had entrusted the said work to M/s. Eagle Tankers, Mumbai.
10. P.W.1 speaks that the materials were lifted from Mangalore Port through Tanker No. GJ 7X-9464 owned by M/s. Eagle Tankers i.e., the Sub-Contractor of the defendant. Subsequently, they received a Fax message on 21.7.2001 from the consignee i.e., M/s. Sekhsaria Chemicals Ltd., informing that they have rejected the goods since it contained 38.1% of water as against the standard limit of 0.02%. They lodged a complaint with the defendant in this regard asking them to make good the value of the materials transported. Thereafter, even they received a Debit 12 O.S.No.7311/02 Note from the consignee claiming a sum of Rs.16,939/- as per Ex.P.3 towards Octroi charges. Ex.P.4 and 5 are the Certificates of Analysis. P.W.1 states that M/s. Eagle Tankers had lodged a Police complaint against the driver of the vehicle who was responsible for the removal of the chemicals from the Tanker and had mixed water in it and thereafter, abandoned the vehicle.
11. P.W.1 has further spoken in his evidence that the defendant had written to M/s. Eagle Tankers to set right the damage caused to the Plaintiff and even the Sub-Contractor/M/s. Eagle Tankers had lodged a Police complaint in this regard against the driver of the vehicle. They wrote a letter as per Ex.P.6 to the defendant asking them to make payment of the value of the Invoice of Rs.4,18,471-04 plus Octroi charges of Rs.16,939-00. Subsequently, M/s. Eagle Tankers had sent a DD for Rs.1,04,500/- as per letter in Ex.P.7 addressed to the defendant which was in turn sent to them by the defendant under letter in Ex.P.8. Thereafter, they again wrote another letter as per Ex.P.9 asking the defendant to make good the balance amount of Rs.3,30,910/- at the earliest. They addressed another letter as per Ex.P.10 in this regard. 13 O.S.No.7311/02
12. Even they contacted the Insurance Company by addressing a letter as per Ex.P.11. Inspite of addressing letters many a times and contacting the defendant on several occasions, the defendant did not come forward to settle the balance amount of Rs.3,30,910/- and the Octroi charges of Rs.16,939/-. Ultimately, they wrote a letter as per Ex.P.12 Dt. 24.6.2002 asking them to contact M/s. Eagle Tankers regarding their claim. Thereafter, they caused a Legal Notice to the defendant as per Ex.P.13 asking the defendant to settle the outstanding dues. P.W.1 has stated that an evasive Reply as per Ex.P.14 has been sent by the defendant to Ex.P.13. Their letters addressed to the Insurance company as per Ex.P.16 and 17 asking them to arrange for settlement of their claim went in vain. M/s. Trans Ocean Marine and General Survey Agencies, Bombay has given a detailed Report with regard to the contamination of the chemicals. Ex.P.18 and P.19 are the letters written by M/s. Trans Ocean Marine and General Survey Agencies, Bombay and Ex.P.23 is a Certificate issued by them.
13. P.W.1 has further spoken that as the defendant has not come forward to settle the outstanding dues, they were constrained to bring the suit. The defendant is liable to pay a sum of 14 O.S.No.7311/02 Rs.3,30,910/- towards Invoice dated 7.7.01 after giving deduction of Rs.1,04,500/- paid by the Sub-contractor/M/s. Eagle Tankers through DD. Till the date of filing the suit, the defendant was bound to pay a sum of Rs.74,475/- interest @ of 18% p.a., and Legal Notice charges of Rs.1000/- thus, an amount of Rs.4,06,385/- was due from the defendant. As such, a decree is sought by the Plaintiff as against the defendant.
14. I have perused the evidence led by the defendant in the case. He is the Proprietor of M/s. Gurudev Trans Lines. The oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the copy of Invoice in Ex.P.2 disclose that the Plaintiff being a Proprietary concern dealing in Industrial and Pharmaceutical Chemicals, had entrusted the job of transporting 9490 Kgs of Iso Propyl Alcohol to the defendant which was to be lifted from Mangalore Port and to be delivered to M/s. Sekhsaria Chemicals Ltd.,Thane, Mumbai. In turn, the defendant had entrusted the said work to M/s. Eagle Tankers, Bombay. D.W.1 in his cross-examination, clearly admits that the Plaintiff never requested in writing for making transport arrangement only for their goods. The contention of the defendant that there is no subsisting contract between the Plaintiff company and the defendant has not 15 O.S.No.7311/02 been fortified by producing cogent and convincing materials before the Court.
15. Though the defendant contends that it only arranged a transport contractor by name M/s. Eagle Tankers on behalf of the Plaintiff to carry the Chemicals from Mangalore Port to Thane, Mumbai, there is no written request in this regard by the Plaintiff. On the request of the Plaintiff for transporting of goods, the defendant on its own had given the job of transporting the Chemicals to its agent/M/s. Eagle Tankers. In the circumstances, M/s. Eagle Tankers being the Agent of the Principal- M/s. Gurudev Trans Lines is liable to make good the loss/damage sustained, in my considered view. M/s. Eagle Tankers had taken responsibility of transporting the chemicals which was entrusted to it by the defendant. During the transportation, the driver of M/s. Eagle Tankers had stolen the chemicals from the tanker and had filled water in the tanker. The contention of the defendant that the Plaintiff can claim the loss/damages sustained from the Insurer or Insured is not correct in the circumstances. Though the Insurance Surveyor by his report dated 1.10.2001 produced in Ex.P.16, 17 and 23, has stated that the loss is recoverable from the Insurer, same 16 O.S.No.7311/02 depends upon the terms of the insurance policy. The Principal/the defendant, who was entrusted with the job of transporting the chemicals, has to look after the recovery of the amount in this regard, in my considered view.
16. The defendant after receipt of the Invoice from the Plaintiff, has entrusted the job of transporting the chemicals through tanker bearing No.GJ 7X-9464 belonging to M/s. Eagle Tankers, Mumbai. Prior to the filing of the suit, Plaintiff company has addressed letters as per Ex.P.6,9 and 10 requesting the defendant to make good the loss sustained by it and asking the defendant to remit the balance amount of Rs.3,30,910/- at the earliest. M/s. Eagle Tankers being the agent of the defendant, through a letter dated Ex.P.7, has sent a DD for Rs.1,04,500/- to the defendant towards contaminated materials transported through their tanker which was sent to the Plaintiff by the defendant, by addressing a letter as per Ex.P.8. This also shows that the Agent is liable for the acts done on behalf of the Principal. Having failed to recover the balance amount of Rs.3,30,910/-, on behalf of the Plaintiff a Legal Notice was issued as per Ex.P.13 asking them to settle the dues. Defendant on their own have given Sub-contract to M/s. Eagle 17 O.S.No.7311/02 Tankers for the transportation of 9490 KGs of Iso Propyl Alcohol. Plaintiff had entrusted the Consignment of Iso Propyl Alcohol Chemicals booked against LR No.0297 dated 6.7.01, Tanker No.GJ 7X-9464 with instructions to deliver the same to M/s. Sekhsaria Chemicals Ltd., Thane, Mumbai.
17. As rightly pointed out by the Counsel for the Plaintiff, the tanker has reached the Consignee after delay of three weeks and before it was unloaded, it was found that it contained excess water against the normal level of water. The Insurance Company through its letter in Ex.P.11, has stated that the action of the driver amounts to cheating and he has committed fraud. The contention of the defendant that through telephone, the Plaintiff had asked to arrange a transport contractor at owner's risk etc., as contended has not been proved and established.
18. On evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence produced by both sides, I am of the considered view that 9490 KGs of Iso Propyl Alcohol covered under the Invoice in Ex.P.2 valued Rs.4,18,471.04 was entrusted to the defendant who gave Sub- contract to M/s. Eagle Tankers for being transported from Mangalore 18 O.S.No.7311/02 Port to and delivered to M/s. Sekhsaria Chemicals Ltd., Thane and during the transit, the chemical was damaged as it was contaminated by adding water. After making payment of Rs.1,04,500/- the defendant is bound to pay Rs.3,30,910/- towards the balance value of the goods damaged. There being interest clause as stated by P.W.1 in his evidence and as disclosed from the Invoice in Ex.P.2, the defendant is bound to pay interest on the said value @ of 18% p.a. also. The oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the Debit Note in Ex.P.3 discloses that Plaintiff company is entitled to claim Octroi charges of Rs.16,939/-. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation to answer issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative. Issue No.5:
19. The defendant has contended that the Plaintiff had made a request through telephone to arrange a transport contractor at owner's risk and accordingly, the defendant arranged a transport contractor by name M/s. Eagle Tankers whose job was to transport the goods to Thane from Mangalore and his job ended on arranging transport contractor-M/s. Eagle Tankers. However, there is no cogent and convincing evidence placed by the defendant in this 19 O.S.No.7311/02 regard to show that the Plaintiff had only sought for making an arrangement to arrange for transporting the goods by entrusting to a transporter. Per contra, the evidence on record discloses that the defendant, on his own has given Sub-contract of transporting the chemicals to M/s. Eagle Tankers for the transportation of Iso Propyl Alcohol chemicals from Mangalore Port to Thane, Mumbai. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation to answer this issue in the negative.
Issue No.6:
20. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the claim, if any of the Plaintiff made in the case is to be recovered from the Insurance company and the defendant is not at all liable to pay any amount, muchless the claim amount. The letter in Ex.P.11 addressed to the Plaintiff by the Insurance company reveals that the legal opinion obtained by the Insurance company indicates the fraud committed by the driver of the Tanker bearing No. GJ 7X-9464 owned by M/s. Eagle Tankers. As the driver of M/s. Eagle Tankers had contaminated the chemicals by adding water to the chemicals, it discloses the act of cheating and the fraud committed here. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the loss 20 O.S.No.7311/02 sustained here by the Plaintiff company is not recoverable from the Insurance company as the defendant on its own had entrusted Sub- contract of transporting the chemicals to M/s. Eagle Tankers. Hence, I answer this issue in the negative.
Issue No.7:
21. The defendant has contended that Plaintiff's suit is bad for non-joinder of M/s. Eagle Tankers and National Insurance Company. As discussed by me while answering on the above issues, the defendant on its own had given the job of transporting the chemicals to its Sub-contractor M/s. Eagle Tankers. There are no materials placed by the defendant before the Court to show that on the request of the Plaintiff, the defendant entrusted the job of transporting the chemicals to M/s. Eagle Tankers at owner's risk. The loss sustained here is required to be made good to the Plaintiff by the defendant only and if it is recoverable, in turn, the defendant can recover the same either from the Sub-contractor- M/s. Eagle Tankers or from the National Insurance Company. Further more, as rightly pointed out by the Counsel for the Plaintiff, a part payment made to M/s. Eagle Tankers of Rs.1,04,500/- towards contaminated material transported by the tanker, has been given to the Plaintiff 21 O.S.No.7311/02 through defendant. In these circumstances, neither M/s. Eagle Tankers nor the National Insurance Company are proper or necessary parties, in my considered view. Hence, I have no hesitation to answer this issue in the negative.
For the discussions made in above and in view of my findings on issue Nos.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs.
The defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,06,385/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal sum due of Rs.3,30,910/- from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerised by her, corrected and then signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 27th day of January 2015).
(Pradeep.S.Balikai) C/C. III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
Annexure:
List of witnesses deposed on behalf of the plaintiff:
P.W.1: Sri. R.Prabhu List of documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff:
22 O.S.No.7311/02
Ex.P.1: Spl. Power of Attorney Dt.25.10.2006
Ex.P.2: Invoice Dt. 7.7.2001.
Ex.P.3: Debit Note.
Ex.P.4&5: Certificates of Analysis (2).
Ex.P.6: Letter written by Plaintiff to defendant Dt.29.12.09.
Ex.P.7: Letter of M/s. Eagle Tankers addressed to defendant
Dt.30.1.02.
Ex.P.8: Letter of the defendant Dt.6.2.02 to Plaintiff.
Ex.P.9: Letter of Plaintiff addressed to defendant Dt.18.2.02.
Ex.P.10: - do - Dt.22.5.02.
Ex.P.11: Letter of National Insurance Ltd., addressed to Plaintiff
Dt.22.6.02.
Ex.P.12: Letter of defendant addressed to Plaintiff Dt.24.6.02.
Ex.P.13: Legal Notice caused on behalf of Plaintiff to defendant
Dt.18.9.02.
Ex.P.14: Reply Notice Dt.19.10.02.
Ex.P.15: Copy of the Invoice Dt.7.7.01.
Ex.P.16&17: Letters addressed by Plaintiff to National Insurance company Ltd., Bangalore Dt.21.7.01 & 2.8.01 respectively.
Ex.P.18&19: Letters of Marine & General Survey Agencies addressed to the Plaintiff Dt.1.10.01 along with the Particulars of survey carried.
Ex.P.20: Letter of the Plaintiff addressed to the defendant Dt.25.5.02.
Ex.P.21: Postal Acknowledgement. Ex.P.22: Postal Receipt. Ex.P.23: Certificate of Marine & General Survey Agencies.
List of witnesses deposed on behalf of the Defendant:
D.W.1: Sri. Giriraj M. Kotian.
List of documents marked on behalf of the Defendant:
- NIL -
(Pradeep.S.Balikai) C/C III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.23 O.S.No.7311/02 24 O.S.No.7311/02
Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate order with the following operative portion:
ORDER Plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs.
The defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,06,385/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal sum due of Rs.3,30,910/- from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
C/C III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.