KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendant in O. S. No. 626 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore is the appellant in the above appeal.

(2.) THE suit in O. S. No. 626 of 1985 was filed by the respondents herein, against the appellant for grant of a decree against the appellant for a sum of Rs. 93,919. 80 with subsequent interest at 18% par annum from the date of the suit till the dale of realization and for costs. THE case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows: THE first plaintiff is an Insurance Company and the second plaintiff is a manufacturer of sewing needles and other connected items having its registered office at Needle Industries Post, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu. THE defendant/appellant is a firm carrying on business as fleet owners and cargo movers having their head office at Calicu t , Kerala State . On 22. 11. 1983, the second plaintiff/second respondent herein, under Invoice No. STD/113 dated 22. 11. 1983 despatched goods from Coonoor to their depot at New Delhi and entrusted the goods to the appellant, as per the invoice. THE appellant agreed and undertook to transport the articles and issued a Lorry Receipt No. 1677360/43 dated 22. 11. 1983 to the second respondent. THE respondents have stated that the appellant is the insurer of goods, as per the provisions of Carriers Act. THE appellant ought to have delivered the goods at New Delhi . But due to the negligence of their servants or agents, the goods were not delivered to the consignee at New Delhi . It is also contended by the appellant/defendant that the said consignment entrusted to them by the second respondent and another consignment were transported by a truck from Dewas Naka to Ghaziabad and that the vehicle caught fire near Jaipur and in that, the truck and the goods loaded in the truck were burnt. THE appellant issued a consolidated non-delivery certificate, dated 13. 6. 1984. THE second respondent herein, made a claim on 19. 6. 1984 to the appellant to settle their claim and since the appellant refused to settle it, the second, respondent claimed the value from the first respondent, as the goods were insured with the first respondent under an open policy No. 946/4400019 for the period 1. 1. 1983 to 31. 12. 1983.

(3.) THE Trial Court on a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by that, the defendant has filed the above appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27. 9. 1989 passed in O. S. No. 676 of 1985.