NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. OM PRAKASH PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Suit, the first plaintiff claims upon a subrogation from the second plaintiff who is stated to have lost goods (being tea in chests) by reason of the doings of the servants or agents of the defendant, a common carrier.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the defendant has already prayed for leave to retire for lack of communication with the defendant and such leave has been granted, However, the written statement of the defendant is on record. Notwithstanding such retirement of counsel, in my opinion a judgment can be passed in favour of the 1st plaintiff upon the admissions contained in the written statement. As the first plaintiff was not in a position to call any witness or formally prove any documents, it is somewhat fortunate for the plaintiff that several noteworthy admissions are contained in the written statement. In paragraph 13 of the written statement, there is admission about delivery of the goods to the defendant and the said delivery being made in regard to the business of the defendant as a common carrier. Paragraph 12 of the written statement also contains no denial of the statements contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the plaint. This part of the plaint also relates to the consignment of the goods and mentions the Truck number in which the goods were carried.

(3.) There is admission in the 14th paragraph of the written statement as to the occurrence of the accident involving the said goods. The 15th paragraph of the written statement specifically admits that the goods were insured with the first plaintiff.