DELUXE ROADLINES Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, original defendant in a suit for damages is a common carrier. It is a partnership firm whose Head Office is in Bangalore.

(2.) PLAINTIFF No.2-The Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Co. Ltd., handed over certain goods to the defendant for being delivered at Hubli in the State of Karnataka. As the goods were never delivered, because, according to the defendant, a major portion of the goods which consisted of consignment of tea had been washed away due to heavy rains at the time when the lorry which was carrying the goods had met with an accident. PLAINTIFF No.2 along with plaintiff No.1, which is National Insurance Co. Ltd., filed a suit for damages amounting to Rs.755 in the Court of the District Judge, Uthagamandalam. In the written statement one of the pleas raised by the defendant was that the Court at Uthagamandalam had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, because, 'the parties have agreed to submit to the Bangalore jurisdiction as stated in the goods consignment note. Therefore, according to the defendant, the suit should be filed only in the appropriate Court at Bangalore.

(3.) EX.A7 was a consignment note issued by the defendant to the second plaintiff on 25.6.1980 and EX.A8 was a second consignment note dated 26.6.1980. These consignment notes as well as the original of these consignment notes had the words 'subject to Bangalore jurisdiction' printed on them. The learned Judge, after referring to the decision of the Bombay High Court in M/s.Road Transport Corpn. v. Kirloskar Bros. Ltd., A.I.R. 1981 Bom. 299, took the view that merely because the words 'subject to Bangalore jurisdiction' were printed, it could not be held that there was a contract restricting the choice of forum in which a suit for damages could be filed. The learned Judge has found that there was no evidence to show that either the consignor or the consignee had signed in EXs.A13 and A14. In both these exhibits the column for the consignor's signature was left blank. The learned Judge took the view that if there was no evidence that the conditions were brought to the notice of the consignor, it would be open to the plaintiffs to file a suit in any competent Court having jurisdiction. Thus, according to him, the Court at Uthagamandalam had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, the learned Judge has also observed relying on a decision of this Court in Prakash Road Lines Pvt. Ltd., v, Muthusami Gounder and Co. (1985)98 L.W.543: A.I.R. 1985 Mad.84, that in view of the decision cited supra the Bangalore Court would not have any jurisdiction, as no part of the cause of action had arisen at Bangalore and that the Court at Uthagamandalam alone had jurisdiction. Having found on the issue of jurisdiction against the defendant, the suit was directed to be taken up for trial on all the other issues. The defendant has now challenged this order of the learned Judge in this revision petition.