MANAGER DOARS TRANSPORT P LTD Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in O.S. 24 of 1978 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Erode, has filed this second appeal, against the Judgment in A.S. 190 of 1979 on the file of District Judge, Erode in which the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal and passed a decree, directing the second defendant to pay the suit claim with cost.

(2.) The plaintiffs case is briefly as follows : The plaintiff is a firm doing business in handloom goods at Chennimalai. The first defendant is doing banking business at Chennimalai and is discounting bills with lorry receipts. The second defendant is a lorry transport company, having its branch office at Chennimalai. On 22-2-77, the plaintiff despatched two gunny bales of handloom bed sheets, valued at Rs. 3,120/- through the second defendant from Chennimalai to Kanpur under lorry receipts Nos. 10267 and 10268. The second defendant undertook to carry the consignment to Kanpur and deliver the same to the consignee viz., M/s. Ravikumar and Company, Kanpur on production of lorry receipts bearing endorsement of the first defendant and State Bank of India, Kanpur. The lorry receipts were discounted with the first defendant. The first defendant is responsible for transhipment of bills with lorry receipts to State Bank of India, Kanpur. The mode of transhipment is by registered post. The first defendant is responsible for delivery of the bills with lorry receipts to M/s. Ravikumar and Company, Kanpur. The said bills and lorry receipts did not reach State Bank of India, Kanpur. The plaintiff learnt that the said bills covered by the lorry receipts were surrendered to the second defendant by one Motilal Kishanlal Gupta and he had taken delivery of the goods. The first defendant collected Rs. 3,120/- and handling charges from the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 are responsible for the loss of consignment. It must be due to the negligence or connivance of the servants of the defendants. Hence the suit against both the defendants.

(3.) The first defendant resists the claim on the following grounds : It is true that lorry receipts and bills were discounted with this defendant at Chennimalai. The usual practice of this defendant is that if the value of the bill is below Rupees 5,000/-, to send the document only by recorded delivery post. Only if specifically instructed by the party, it would be sent by registered-post. The plaintiff has not given any specific instruction to send the document by registered post. There was no negligence or connivance on the part of the servants of the first defendant. Hence this defendant is not liable.