Bangalore District Court
The New India Assurance Compnany ... vs M/S Prc Logistics Pvt Limited on 20 September, 2024
KABC170010732022
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-84)
Present: Sri S. Sudindranath, LL.M., M.B.L.,
LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
COM.OS.No.553/2022
Dated on this 20th day of September 2024
Plaintiffs 1. The New India Assurance Company
Limited,
Regional Office/Claims Hub,
#2-B, Unity Building Annex,
Mission Road, Bengaluru-560027.
Represented by its Regional Manager.
2. M/s. ORB Energy Private Limited,
95, Digital Park Road, 2nd Stage,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru-560022.
Represented by the plaintiff No.1 as
Power of Attorney Holder/Subrogee.
(By Sri.Lakshminarayana A R,
Advocate)
// versus //
Defendant M/s. PRC Logistics Private Limited,
#16-2-677/2, Flat No.501, 5th Floor,
Tirumala Towers, Judges Colony,
Malakpet, Hyderabad-500036.
(By Smt.K.Usha Rani, Advocate)
Date of Institution of suit : 07/04/2022
Nature of the suit : Transactions of
merchants, financiers,
2
CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc
KABC170010732022
traders relating
mercantile documents
(enforce, interpret)
Date of commencement of :
recording of the evidence 09/03/2023
Date on which the : 20/09/2024
Judgment was pronounced.
: Year Month/ Day/s
Total duration /s s
02 05 13
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by insurance company and insured [Plaintiff No. 1 and 2] against the common carrier [Defendant] for recovery of sum of Rs. 13,74,794/= along with interest towards the insurance claim paid by the insurance company to the insured, for damages suffered to the goods during its carriage by the common carrier.
2. The plaint averments in brief are that, Plaintiff No. 2 is engaged in business of solar heating equipment and had obtained marine cargo annual turnover policy from the plaintiff No. 1 covering its consignments of solar heating equipment during transport by air, vessel, road or rail and the said policy covered loss or damage to the cargo due to accident, etc. in transit or while in custody of the carrier. The 3 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 plaintiff No. 2 engaged the services of the defendant which is a common carrier for transportation of 266 solar panels from Bangalore to Dharwad and Ranibennur on 25-10-2019. When the said consignment was in transit, on 26-10-2019 the truck which was used to transport the said consignment met with accident near Anagodu village, Dharwad district and the truck capsized/ overturned causing damage to 141 boxes containing the solar panel equipment. As a result of this, the defendant / common carrier issued damage certificate confirming damage to the consignment due to the accident. Since the damage to the consignment had occurred during transport by road which was covered under the insurance policy, the plaintiff No. 2 raised a claim with plaintiff No. 1 for Rs 12,25,000. The Plaintiff No. 1 appointed IRDA licensed surveyor namely Shree Surveyor to conduct survey to verify the consignment and to assess the actual damage and loss. The surveyors inspected the consignment at the premises of Plaintiff No. 2 and submitted report assessing the loss at Rs. 14,70,736. The Plaintiff No. 1 / Insurance Company accepted the insurance claim raised by Plaintiff No. 2 and paid Rs. 13,67,534 to Plaintiff No. 2 and also paid the survey fee of Rs. 4
CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 7260 to the surveyors. Thus, the total payout by the insurance company towards the said insurance claim is Rs. 13,74,794. After settlement of the insurance claim, the plaintiff No. 2 has issued letter of subrogation and power of attorney in favor of the insurance company. Thereby, exercising the right of subrogation, the present suit is filed by the insurance company to recover the sum paid under the insurance claim from the Defendant / common carrier on the ground that, the damage occurred to the goods due to the actionable negligence of the Defendant. With these pleadings, suit is filed for recovery of sum of Rs 13,74,794 along with interest at 18% per annum from date of suit till date of realization from the defendant.
3. The defendant has entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed written statement denying the suit claim. Certain preliminary contentions are raised that the insurance agreement is between the Plaintiffs inter-se to which defendant is not a party and hence it cannot be enforced against the defendant. It is contended that suit is not maintainable for non-compliance of section 3 and section 10 5 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 of the Carriage of Goods Act 1865. It is contended that, the letter of subrogation and special power of attorney said to be executed by plaintiff No. 2 in favor of plaintiff No. 1 are not valid documents and therefore, the insurance company has no right to file the present suit. On merits, contention raised is that, the consignment was booked at owner's risk and therefore no liability can be imposed on the defendant. Another contention raised is that, no part of cause of action has arisen in Bangalore and therefore this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is contended that, when the consignment was booked, the consignment was in packed condition and the internal contents were not disclosed to the defendant and it was not disclosed that the consignment is insured and therefore it is contended that there is the suppression of material facts by the Plaintiff No. 2 at the time of booking the consignment and therefore there is no liability on the carrier. It is contended that, due to heavy rain and bad condition of the road, the driver of the vehicle lost control and the vehicle overturned and after the accident, on the instruction of Plaintiff No. 2, the consignment was reloaded in another lorry and delivered 6 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 back to the godown of Plaintiff No. 2 in Bangalore and therefore it is denied that, there was any negligence on the part of the defendant and thereby denied liability. Denying all other plaint averments, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed;
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that
defendant is liable to compensate the
plaintiffs for the loss caused to the
consignment transported through
defendant?
2) Whether the defendant proves that suit is bad for non-compliance of Section 3 and 10 of the Carriers of Goods Act 1865?
3) Whether the defendant proves that consignment was booked at owner's risk and therefore defendant is not liable to pay any compensation?
4) Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit?
5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of Rs. 13,74,794 with interest as prayed?
6) What decree or order?
7
CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022
5. In the trial the official of the plaintiff No. 1 [Insurance Company] is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex. P1 to P14. After the matter was reserved for judgment on earlier occasion, hearing was reopened by this court suo-motu, to hear clarifications as to whether the surveyor who has submitted the survey report in the present suit is qualified to do so under Rule 12 of Carriage by Road Rules 2011 and in view of said clarification sought by this court, evidence was reopened and plaintiff examined the surveyor as PW 2. On behalf of the defendant, representative of the defendant is examined as Dw1 but has not marked any documents.
6. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records of the case.
7. My answer to the issues are as follows;
Issue No. 1 and 5 : In the negative Issue No. 2 and 3 : In the negative Issue No. 4 : As per finding Issue No. 6 : As per final order for the following :-
REASONS Issue No. 1 and 5 :-
8. These issues are interconnected and require common discussion and hence considered together. 8
CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022
9. The case of the plaintiff is that, Plaintiff No. 2 is engaged in business of solar heating equipment and had obtained marine cargo annual turnover policy from the plaintiff No. 1 covering its consignments of solar heating equipment during transport by air, vessel, road or rail and the said policy covered loss or damage to the cargo due to accident, etc. in transit or while in custody of the carrier. The plaintiff No. 2 engaged the services of the defendant which is a common carrier for transportation of 266 solar panels from Bangalore to Dharwad and Ranibennur on 25-10-2019. When the said consignment was in transit, on 26-10-2019 the truck which was used to transport the said consignment met with accident near Anagodu village, Dharwad district and the truck capsized/ overturned causing damage to 141 boxes containing the solar panel equipment. As a result of this, the defendant / common carrier issued damage certificate confirming damage to the consignment due to the accident. Since the damage to the consignment had occurred during transport by road which was covered under the insurance policy, the plaintiff No. 2 raised a claim with plaintiff No. 1 for Rs 12,25,000. The Plaintiff No. 1 appointed IRDA licensed 9 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 surveyor namely Shree Surveyor to conduct survey to verify the consignment and to assess the actual damage and loss. The surveyors inspected the consignment at the premises of Plaintiff No. 2 and submitted report assessing the loss at Rs. 14,70,736. The Plaintiff No. 1 / Insurance Company accepted the insurance claim raised by Plaintiff No. 2 and paid Rs. 13,67,534 to Plaintiff No. 2 and also paid the survey fee of Rs. 7260 to the surveyors. Thus, the total payout by the insurance company towards the said insurance claim is Rs. 13,74,794. After settlement of the insurance claim, the plaintiff No. 2 has issued letter of subrogation and power of attorney in favor of the insurance company. Thereby, exercising the right of subrogation, the present suit is filed by the insurance company to recover the sum paid under the insurance claim from the Defendant / common carrier on the ground that, the damage occurred to the goods due to the actionable negligence of the Defendant. With these pleadings, suit is filed for recovery of sum of Rs 13,74,794 along with interest at 18% per annum from date of suit till date of realization from the defendant.
10
CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022
10. In support of its case, the official of Plaintiff No. 1 / Insurance Company is examined as PW1 and through him got marked Ex. P1 to P14. In addition, the surveyor who has submitted the survey report at Ex. P10 is examined as PW 2.
11. Ex. P1 is the authorization letter issued by Plaintiff No. 1 Insurance Company in favor of PW1. Ex. P2 and P3 are the 2 consignment bills / transporter's bill issued by the defendant who is the common carrier at the time of accepting the consignment from Bangalore to Dharwad and Bangalore to Ranibennur on 25-10-2019. Ex. P4 is the insurance policy on the basis of which Plaintiff No. 1 has already made payment to Plaintiff No. 2 and for recovery of the said amount from the carrier, the present suit is filed. Ex. P5 is the damage certificate issued by the defendant at the time of delivering the damaged goods on 30-10-2019 to plaintiff No. 2, in which it is admitted that, the defendant had dispersed the material in a vehicle and due to heavy rains and floods the road were damaged badly and on 26-10-2019 early morning due to heavy rain the vehicle capsized at Dharwad due to pothole as a result of which the material and some 11 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 panels may be damaged. Relevant portions of Ex.P 5 are marked as Ex.P 5 (a) and (b). Ex. P6 is the Marine Cargo Annual Turnover Policy. Ex. P7 is the Claim Bill submitted by Plaintiff No. 2 to Plaintiff No. 1 Insurance Company. Ex. P8 is the statutory notice under the Carriers Act issued by Plaintiff No. 2 to the defendant. Ex. P9 is the invoice towards the surveyors fee. Ex. P10 is the surveyors report. Ex. P11 is the letter of subrogation by Plaintiff No. 2 in favor of Plaintiff No.
1. Ex. P12 is Indemnity Bond. Ex. P13 is the Settlement Intimation Voucher, under which Plaintiff No. 2 has agreed to receive the sum of Rs. 13,67,534 in full and final settlement of its insurance claim. Ex. P14 is the non-starter report of PIM.
12. Per contra, the defense raised by the defendant is that, the insurance agreement is between the Plaintiffs inter-se to which defendant is not a party and hence it cannot be enforced against the defendant. It is contended that suit is not maintainable for non-compliance of section 3 and section 10 of the Carriage of Goods Act 1865. It is contended that, the letter of subrogation and special power of attorney said to be 12 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 executed by plaintiff No. 2 in favor of plaintiff No. 1 are not valid documents and therefore, the insurance company has no right to file the present suit. On merits, contention raised is that, the consignment was booked at owner's risk and therefore no liability can be imposed on the defendant. Another contention raised is that, no part of cause of action has arisen in Bangalore and therefore this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is contended that, when the consignment was booked, the consignment was in packed condition and the internal contents were not disclosed to the defendant and it was not disclosed that the consignment is insured and therefore it is contended that there is the suppression of material facts by the Plaintiff No. 2 at the time of booking the consignment and therefore there is no liability on the carrier. It is contended that, due to heavy rain and bad condition of the road, the driver of the vehicle lost control and the vehicle overturned and after the accident, on the instruction of Plaintiff No. 2, the consignment was reloaded in another lorry and delivered back to the godown of Plaintiff No. 2 in Bangalore and therefore it is denied that, there was any negligence on the 13 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 part of the defendant and thereby denied liability. Denying all other plaint averments, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
13. In support of its case, the defendant has examined its representative as DW1, but no documents are marked.
14. Having considered the rival contentions and the oral and documentary evidence on record, at the outset it is to be noted that there is absolutely no dispute that the plaintiff No. 2, which is in the business of solar panels, had entrusted the transportation of consignment of solar panels from Bangalore to Dharwad and Bangalore to Ranibennur, to the Defendant which is a common carrier. This fact is forthcoming from the consignment notes marked as Ex. P2 and P3. There is absolutely no dispute that when the said consignment was being transported by defendant, the vehicle in which the consignment was being transported met with an accident which resulted in damage to the goods forthcoming from the damage certificate issued by the defendant itself at Ex. P5. From this certificate, it is forthcoming that, consignment was booked on 25-10-2019 and when the 14 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 consignment was being transported in early morning hours of 26-10-2019, the vehicle met with accident resulting in damage to some of the solar panels and after the accident the damaged goods were brought back to Bangalore and handed over to Plaintiff No. 2 on 30-10-2019. Further, there is no dispute that towards damage sustained to the solar panels the Plaintiff No. 2 raised insurance claim as per Ex. P7 with the plaintiff No. 1 since the goods were insured as per the insurance policy at Ex. P4 and P6. The insurance company appointed surveyor namely Shree Surveyors [PW 2] to conduct survey and submit report regarding the damage sustained by the solar panels and the surveyors have issued the survey report as per Ex. P10. On the basis of the survey report and being satisfied that the goods were damaged during transportation which is covered under the insurance policy, the insurance company has settled the insurance claim of plaintiff No. 2 by paying Rs. 13,67,534 as per the settlement intimation voucher at Ex. P13 which is received by plaintiff No. 2 as full and final settlement. Thereafter, the Plaintiff No. 2 has executed the letter of subrogation in favour of the Insurance Company as per Ex. P11 and on this basis, 15 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 Insurance Company has stepped into the shoes of the Plaintiff No. 2 / insured and has filed the present suit against the wrongdoer, namely the defendant / common carrier, for recovery of the insurance claim paid to plaintiff No. 2 and also for recovery of the charges of the surveyor i.e. for recovery of total sum of Rs. Rs. 13,74,794 on the ground that the damage to the solar panels consignment occurred due to the negligence of the common carrier / Defendant.
15. In this case there is no dispute that the defendant is a common carrier as defined by the Carriage by Road Act 2007 since the plaintiff No. 2 itself has issued statutory notice to defendant under the Carriages Act as per Ex. P8. Therefore, it is the provisions of Carriage by Road Act, 2007, which is applicable to the facts of present case and liability of the common carrier / Defendant has to be determined as per the provisions of said Act.
16. In order to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from defendant towards damage caused to the goods during carriage by road, it is necessary to ascertain what is the liability of common carrier under the 16 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 Carriage by Road Act 2007. Section 10 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, which is relevant, is as follows;
10. Liability of common carrier.--(1) The liability of the common carrier for loss of, or damage to any consignment, shall be limited to such amount as may be prescribed having regard to the value, freight and nature of goods, documents or articles of the consignment, unless the consignor or any person duly authorised in that behalf have expressly undertaken to pay higher risk rate fixed by the common carrier under Section 11.
(2) The liability of the common carrier in case of any delay up to such period as may be mutually agreed upon by and between the consignor and the common carrier and specifically provided in the goods forwarding note including the consequential loss or damage to such consignment shall be limited to the amount of freight charges where such loss, damage or delay took place while the consignment was under the charge of such carrier:
Provided that beyond the period so agreed upon in the goods forwarding note, compensation shall be payable in accordance with sub -section (1) or Section 11:
Provided further that the common carrier shall not be liable if such carrier proves that such loss of, or damage to, the consignment or delay in delivery thereof, had not taken place due to his fault or neglect or that of his servants or agents thereof.
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. On plain reading of Section 10 of the Act, it becomes clear that, the liability of the common carrier for loss or 17 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 damage to consignment shall be limited to such amount as may be prescribed, unless the higher risk rate as fixed by the common carrier has been paid. In the case on hand, there is no such special contract to pay higher risk rate and no such higher risk rate is forthcoming from the consignment notes at Ex. P2 and P3. Therefore, in the case on hand, the liability of the defendant / common carrier shall be limited to such amount as may be prescribed by the rules.
18. The rules are framed in the Carriage by Road Rules 2011. For the purpose of this case, Rule 12 is relevant and lays down as follows;
"Liability of common carrier for loss of or damage to any consignment :-
(1) Liability of the common carrier under section 10 for total loss shall be limited to 10 times the freight paid or payable.
Provided that the amount so calculated shall not exceed the value of the goods as declared in the goods forwarding note.
2. In the case of partial damage to the goods, evaluation of such damage may be done by an independent government-approved valuer or surveyor selected by the consignor out of the list notified by the common carrier in its main and branch offices, and the cost of such evaluation shall be borne by the common carrier.
3. In the case of partial loss, the amount of liability shall be as assessed by the 18 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 government-approved valuer or surveyor under Rule 2.
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. On plain reading of Rule 12 of the Carriage by Road Rules 2011, it becomes clear that, where there is total loss of the goods, then the liability of the common carrier shall be limited to 10 times the freight paid or payable. This is not a case of total loss of the goods but even as per the case of the plaintiffs only some of the solar panels were damaged and therefore this is a case of partial damage. In the case of partial damage under Rule 12 (2), the valuation of damage may be done by independent government-approved valuer or surveyor selected by the consignor [plaintiff No. 2] out of list notified by the common carrier / defendant and the amount of liability shall be as assessed by such surveyor. Therefore in the case of partial damage to the goods, the liability of the common carrier shall be such liability as is assessed by independent government approved valuer or a surveyor selected from the list notified by the common carrier.
20. In the case on hand, the survey report is issued by Shree surveyors i.e. PW 2 as per Ex. P10. PW 2 in his chief 19 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 examination affidavit has stated regarding his credentials as surveyor as follows;
"I am an A category surveyor duly licensed by IRDAI and authorized to conduct fire, miscellaneous and engineering surveys."
21. Therefore even accepting the above statement of PW 2 at face value [although no documents are produced in this regard] it is forthcoming that, PW 2 who has submitted the survey report in the present case is neither a government approved valuer nor a surveyor mentioned in the list of surveyors published by the common carrier. Therefore, PW 2 does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 12 [2] of Carriage by Road Rules 2011. Therefore, the survey report of PW 2 which is marked as Ex. P10 cannot be basis for assessing the damage payable by the common carrier.
22. It is to be noted that, the Carriage by Road Act is a special act and the requirements of the statute have to be strictly satisfied before liability is imposed on the common carrier, i.e. the defendant. In the case on hand, it is a case of partial damage to the consignment. This is because PW 2, who is the surveyor, in his chief examination affidavit at 20 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 paragraph 5, has clearly stated that out of 266 solar panels, 141 panels were broken or cell cracked or frame damaged. Under Section 10 of the Carriage by Road Act 2007, in the case of damage or loss to the goods during consignment, the liability of the common carrier shall be limited to such amount as may be prescribed. Under Rule 12 of the Carriage by Road Rules, 2011, in the case of partial damage, the liability shall be as assessed by Government Approved Valuer or Surveyor selected from list published by the common carrier. Therefore, under the above statutory scheme of section 10 of Carriage By Road act read with Rule 12 of Carriage By Road Rules 2011 in order to impose any liability on common carrier for partial loss to the consignment, there has to be a survey report by either a government approved valuer or surveyor selected out of list published by the common carrier. In the case on hand, the PW 2 who has submitted the survey report at Ex. P10 on the basis of which the insurance claim has been settled is neither a government- approved valuer nor surveyor mentioned in the list published by the common carrier. Therefore, on the basis of the said survey report, it is not possible to the liability on the 21 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 defendant. There is no other survey report by a competent government-approved valuer or surveyor published in List of Common Carrier on the basis of which to impose the liability on the defendant. Therefore, it follows that, in the case on hand, no liability can be imposed on the defendant under the scheme of the Carriage by Road Act and Carriage by Road Rules. Accordingly, I hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any amount towards the damage suffered to the goods from the defendant. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 1 and 5 in the negative.
Issue No. 2 :-
23. The defendant has raised the plea that suit is bad for non-compliance of section 3 and 10 of Carriage of Goods Act 1865. However, it is to be noted that, by Section 22 of Carriage by Road Act 2007, the Carrier Act 1865 has been repealed. Therefore, when the said statute itself has been repealed, the contention of the defendant that suit is defective for noncompliance of Section 3 and 10 of the said 1865 Act, cannot be accepted and accordingly issue No. 2 is answered in the negative.22
CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 Issue No. 3:-
24. In this case, defendant has raised a plea that the consignment was booked at owner's risk and therefore there cannot be any liability imposed on the defendant. For this contention, defendant relies upon the consignment notes at Ex. P2 and P3, wherein it is mentioned as "at owner's risk".
However, the common carrier cannot contract itself out of the liability imposed by the statute. In the case on hand, the liability of the common carrier is prescribed by Section 10 of the Carriage by Road Act 2007 and Rule 12 of Carriage by Road Rules 2011. The liability imposed by the statute cannot be contracted out by the common carrier by introducing a clause in the consignment note as "At owner's risk". Therefore, issue No. 3 is answered in the negative. Issue No. 4:-
25. The defendant has raised plea that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit because the accident which resulted in damage to the goods took place in Dharwad. This contention cannot be accepted because admittedly after the accident took place in Dharwad, 23 CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 the defendant has transported the damaged goods to Bangalore and delivered the damaged goods back to the Plaintiff No. 2 in Bangalore. Apart from this, the letter of subrogation at Ex. P11 on the basis of which present suit has been filed by the insurance company on behalf of plaintiff No. 2 has been executed in Bangalore. Therefore, part of cause of action has arisen in Bangalore and therefore, this court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and therefore, issue No. 4 is answered in the negative.
Issue No. 6 :-
26. Since I have answered issue No. 1 and 5 in the negative, holding that, in this case, no liability can be imposed on the defendant - common carrier, under the scheme of the Carriage by Road Act, since there is no survey report by a competent surveyor, i.e. either a government-
approved valuer or surveyor mentioned in a list published by the common carrier, it follows that, suit is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit is dismissed, with cost.
Office to draw decree accordingly.24
CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 Office to issue soft copy of this judgment to both sides, by email, if furnished. [Dictated using Dragon Professional Speech Recognition Software Version 15.3, transcript revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of September, 2024] (Sri. S. Sudindranath) LXXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT; BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiffs:
PW.1 : Sunit Lakra, Assistant Manager in plaintiff company.
PW.2 : Dr.K. Amamath. Principal Surveyor.
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant:
DW.1: Mahender Kumar
3. List of documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 : Authorization letter given by Regional Manager.
Ex.P.2 &P3: Two consignment notes.
Ex.P.4 : Marine Claim Firm.
Ex.P.5 : Certificate of facts dt.23/11/2019.
Ex.P.6 : Printout of Marine Cargo Annual Turnover
Policy.
Ex.P.7 : Claim Bill.
Ex.P.8 : Copy of statutory notice under the
Carriers Act dt.5/11/2019.
Ex.P.9 : Invoice given by the Surveyor.
Ex.P.10 : Survey report along with photographs are produced in handwritten page No.25 to 35.25
CT 1390_Com.OS.553-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170010732022 Ex.P.11 : Letter of subrogation.
Ex.P.12 : Indemnity Bond for Marine Claim. Ex.P.13 : Settlement Intimation Voucher.
Ex.P.14 : PIM Report.
4. List of documents marked on behalf of Defendant:
NIL.
(Sri. S. Sudindranath) LXXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT; BANGALORE.