THE JULLUNDUR EX-SERVICEMEN MOTOR TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs. THE GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the facts of this case are that Messrs Fatehabad Cotton, ginning and Pressing Factory, plaintiff No. 2, a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, booked two consignments of cotton, comprising 100 bales and 75 bales, from Mandi Dabwali, situated in the erstwhile State of Punjab (now in Haryana), to Rampur (Uttar Pradesh) with the Jullundur Ex - -Servicemen Motor Transport Co - -operative Society Ltd.(defendant) vide two receipts dated May 26, 1967. It got the consignments insured with the General Assurance Society Ltd. (plaintiff No. 1). These were burnt at Delhi - -U. P. border. The burnt goods were sorted out, surveyed and disposed of under the supervision of all the parties concerned. It is alleged that plaintiff No. 2 suffered a loss of Rs. 48,689/ -. Plaintiff No. 1, it is further alleged, settled and paid the claim of plaintiff No. 2 who executed deed of subrogation in favour of plaintiff No. 1. Both the plaintiffs after having given up a claim of Rs. 689/ -instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 48,000/ -.

(2.) THE defendant filed an application under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of proceedings in the suit on the ground that according to the terms of agreement between plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant, the disputes between them were to be referred to the arbitration. The trial Court, vide order dated April 30, 1971, dismissed the application. The defendant came to this Court in appeal (F. A. O. No. 149 of 1971) against the order of the trial Court. The parties entered into a compromise in the appeal and referred the matter to the arbitration of Mr. Amrit Sagar Mahajan, Advocate, Chandigarh. While he was dealing with the matter, he met with an accident and died. Consequently it was referred to Mr. Ram Lal Aggarwal, Advocate, as Arbitrator.

(3.) THE defendant raised an argument before Mr. Ram Lal Aggarwal that no notice under S. 10 of the Carries Act, 1865, had been served by any of the plaintiffs on the defendant within six months and, therefore, the plaintiff's claim was liable to be rejected. On behalf of the plaintiffs it was argued that the letter dated June 13, 1967, Exhibit P. W. 9/1/A satisfied the requirements of the said section. The Arbitrator having felt difficulty in deciding the matter and finding it to be of considerable importance, referred it for the opinion and advice of this Court under S. 13(b) of the Arbitration Act, vide order dated Jan. 9, 1976. The matter was decided by Harbans Lal, J. who vide order dated Aug. 9, 1976* held that notice dated June 13, 1967, Exhibit P. W. 9/1/A satisfied the requirements of S. 10 of the Carriers Act. {*Reported in, (1976) 78 P LR 885.}