M/S Premier Transport Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. And ANR.

RSA No.3855 of 2016 (O&M) {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3855 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:05.08.2016 M/s Premier Transport Ltd.

... Appellant Vs.

The New India Assurance Company Limited and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. Hargobinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellant.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The appellant-defendant is aggrieved of the decreetal of the suit instituted at the instance of respondent - The New India Assurance Company Limited ordering for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realization. Mr. Hargoibnder Singh Gill, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant submits that the goods were taken at the risk of owner and therefore, they are not entitled to claim damages of having broken articles as the appellant is none else but a transporter, i.e., defendant No.1 and thus, submits that this fact has not been noticed by the Courts below and thus, urges this Court for setting aside of the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

The fact remains that appellant/defendant No.1-M/s Premier Transport Ltd is a common carrier and the consignment comprising Sugar Machinery parts including one mass flow meter was entrusted by respondent/defendant No.2-M/s ISGEC to defendant No.1/appellant-M/s Savita 2016.08.10 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.3855 of 2016 (O&M) {2} Premier Transport Ltd. For transporting the consignment from Yamuna Nagar to Haidergarh Chini Mills, Village Pokhra, Tehsil Haidergarh, Tehsil Bara Banki (UP) and the goods were packed in perfect and sound condition on 18.7.2003 which were accepted by the common carrier vide good receipt no.130130 dated 18.7.2003. When the consignment was opened by the consignee, it was found that the flow meter was in damaged condition, the goods were found broken from the neck and the surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss, vide report dated 10.11.2003. In my view, the contention of the appellant cannot be looked into consideration. As per provisions of Section 6 of the Carriers Act, 1865 which enable the common carrier to limit his liability but a special contract will not absolve the carrier.

In the present case, valid subrogation is in favour of the plaintiff. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to ponder upon the provision of Section 6 of the Act in Nath Bors Exim International Limited vs. Best Roadways Limited 2000 CCJ 481 (SC). With the aforementioned observations, I do not intend to differ with the findings rendered by both the Courts below which are based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 05, 2016 savita Wheather speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Savita 2016.08.10 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh