SIRMOUR TRUCK OPERATORS UNION (REGD.) Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, PAONTA SAHIB, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.04.1998, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 10 -N/ 13 of 1996.

(2.) Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff - for convenience sake), had filed a suit in the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class (I), Paonta Sahib, Distirict Sirmaur, H.P. for recovery of Rs. 68,074/ - against the appellant -defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant - for convenience sake). M/s. Himachal Milk Specialties Pvt. Ltd., Rampur, Paonta Sahib booked goods with the defendant vide G.R. No. 1185, dated 17.06.1991 for its delivery at Jaipur. The consignment was being transported in truck No. HP -A -2 105. The goods were insured with the plaintiff. The defendant is a registered transport union, which deals in the transportation of goods to various parts of the country with its office located at Paonta Sahib. It was alleged that due to rash or negligent driving of the truck in question, it met with an accident on 18.06.199 1. A total loss of ˜ 68,074/ - was caused and the plaintiff had to pay this amount to M/s. Himachal Milk Specialties Pvt. Ltd.. According to the Insurance Company, the loss has been caused due to the negligence on the part of the defendant -Union, since it failed to send the consignment safely to its destination. Accordingly, the defendant was liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff. A letter of subrogation has been issued in favour of the plaintiff by M/s. Himachal Milk Specialties Pvt. Ltd. and it has been authorized to claim the loss from the defendant. A notice was served upon the defendant.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant. It was admitted by the defendant that the accident took place. However, it was averred that the defendant was not liable to make good the loss caused in the accident. According to the defendant, it was the duty of the plaintiff to indemnify the loss caused to the vehicle in question. The subrogation of the authority by M/s. Himachal Milk Specialties Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff was also disputed.