BANGALORE SAREE UDYOG Vs. SAVANI TRANSPORT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small causes Courts' Act from the order of the Judge Small Causes recording the finding to the effect that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the plaintiff's suit which was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,120/- for the value of the goods lost.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case has been that the defendant, who has been the Carrier. The goods had been handed over to it and were booked from Bangalore to Baroda and thereafter were rebooked from baroda to Bangalore, as they were booked with defendant's consignment bearing No. 22007 dated 8. 2. 1992, from Bangalore to baroda and the same was to be delivered to his customer M/s. Pinky Sarees. The plaintiffs' further case is that, thereafter the M/s. Pinky Sarees instructed the plaintiffs to send the documents in respect of the aforesaid consignment through Bank for clearance of the payment and the plaintiffs. As per the instructions of the customer, m/s. Pinky Sarees, booked the consignment with the defendant and sent the original invoice and lorry receipt to the Bank of Baroda, mandov Branch, Baroda, for being honoured of by making payment. Plaintiffs' case is that customer did not cleaf and return the document after making payment to the Bank and the Bank Manager sent the documents to plaintiff with endorsement that those documents were dishonoured. After receipt of the documents, the plaintiffs informed the defendant to rebook the above consignment from Baroda to Bangalore and deliver the same at Bangalore City vide letter dated 9. 10. 1992. According to plaintiffs' case, on 15. 3. 1993, defendant had stated that the aforesaid consignment had been stolen from the Baroda delivery godown and requested the plaintiff to hand over the invoice and the lorry receipt to them. The defendant asked the plaintiffs to give the invoice and lorry receipts, so that the defendant could claim value of the consignment from insurance Company. According to the plaintiffs' case the loss of consignment and hand delivery of the consignment was due to the negligence and misconduct of defendant and its employees and, so plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the cost of the goods, that is a sum of Rs. 15,320/- with current interest at 18% from the date of the suit till the date of realisation.

(3.) THE defendant raised the plea that suit is not cognisable by the Small Cause Courts and it, appears reliance was placed on item No. 29 of the Schedule-8 of the Small Causes Courts Act 1964 and the Court opined that, as the suit is for recovery of loss, so in view of law laid in DELHI HARYANA TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs M/s. TATA TEA LTD. that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, it held the suit to be not entertainable by it and, passed the order for return of the plaint.