DEEPAK TRANSPORT AGENCY Vs. MADRAS PHARMACEUTICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree dated 17.04.2006 in A.S.No.163 of 2005 on the file of the Fast Track Court cum Additional District Judge, Chennai reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2004 in O.S.No.5293 of 2000 on the file of XII Asst.Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to 'the plaintiffs and the defendants'.

(3.) The case of the first plaintiff was that being manufacturer of Pharmaceutical products, despatched certain products under various Invoices bearing Nos.MS 404 and 405 dated 17.12.1998 valued at Rs.3,56,928/- and MS 406 and 407 dated 17.12.1998 valued at Rs.1,21,420/- and 63,138.40 respectively and MS 406 dated 18.12.1998 valued at Rs.1,05,656/- to M/s.Rallis India Ltd., Pharamaceutical Division, Mumbai. According to the first plaintiff, the said consignment packed to withstand transit risks were entrusted to the first defendant/common carrier for safe carriage and delivery to the consignee at Mumbai. In acknowledgment of such entrustment, the Carrier issued consignment notes bearing Nos.6065281 and 60605282. Having accepted the entrustment, the defendants failed to discharge their duty as ultimately, they short delivered the consignment to the consignee. According to the first plaintiff, short delivery of the consignment resulted pecuniary loss to the consignor, namely, the first plaintff and it was due to the negligence of the defendants Carrier and therefore, having insured the consignment with the second defendant Insurance Company, the first plaintiff made a claim. The second plaintiff, which undertook the transit risk policy and as per the terms of the said policy, the second plaintiff has settled the claim for Rs.2,20,887/- of the first plaintiff and upon such settlement of the claim, the first plaintiff executed a letter of subrogation and special power of attorney in favour of the second plaintiff on 15.06.1999. By virtue of such execution of letter of subrogation, the second plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit for recovery of the sum settled in favour of the first plaintiff from the defendants Carrier. In the said circumstances, the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,20,887/- for short delivery of consignment due to the negligent act of the defendants Carrier.