UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MUTHULAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The defendants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of of one K.R.Raman who carried on the goods transport business in the name and style, Sri Velmurugan Transport at Sattur. The third defendant booked a consignment on 15.6.1979 with the said Sri Velmurugan Transport for transporting certain bundles of matches from Mudukku Meendanpatti village, Sattur taluk to Lalithapur, Maharashtra State. The goods were transported by Sri Velmurugan Transport through its lorry and the lorry on its way to the destination overturned and fell and on account of the heavy impact due to the said fall, the match bundles loaded in the lorry got fire and the entire match bundles were completely burnt. The third defendant who booked the consignment informed the plaintiff of the accident and also gave a notice to the proprietor of Sri Velmurugan Transport claiming the value of the goods lost in the fire. The proprietor of Sri Velmurugan Transport disowned his liability. Since the goods were insured with the plaintiff by the third defendant under Transit Insurance Scheme, the plaintiff settled the claim of the third defendant by payment of a sum of Rs.75,530/-, being the value of the damages goods on 10.12.1979. The third defendant executed on the same day a letter of Subrogation in favour of the plaintiff and also executed a Special Power of Attorney authorising the plaintiff to take necessary legal proceedings on behalf of it against the proprietor of Sri Velmurugan Transport.

(2.) . The proprietor of Sri Velmurugan Transport, Raman died and his legal representatives were shown as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit along with the owner of the consignment, namely, the third defendant on the ground that the third defendant was colluding with defendants 1 and 2 and evading to join the plaintiff in filing the suit. Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.97,106.40 with interest of Rs.75,530/- from the date of plaint till the date of payment.

(3.) . The third defendant remained ex parte in the suit and defendants 1 and 2 contested the matter. The trial Court, after framing necessary issues, found that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the common carrier and it was only due to the negligence on the part of the driver, the accident had occurred. The trial Court also found that on the basis of the document, viz., the deed of subrogation (Ex.A-12), the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable, and accordingly, decreed the suit.