Division Bench dismissed an appeal by a common carrier challenging insurance compensation for short delivery. The court held that undisputed short delivery established liability and upheld the interest rate as justified for commercial transactions.
The appellant's appeal was dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/15TH BHADRA 1934
AFA.No. 56 of 1998 ( )
OS.96/1994 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN AS/DEFENDANT IN OS.:
M/S.SUPER TRANSPORT COMPANY, A.M. ROAD, KOTHAMANGALAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ, SRI.N.RAMESH, SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT IN AS/PLAINTIFF IN O.S.:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KULANGARA TOWERS, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.
2. TATA TEA LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, MUNNAR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FIRST RESPONDENT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN.
THIS APPEAL FROM FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
AFA No.56 of 1998
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2012
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
The defendant, a common carrier is the appellant. Admittedly, it transported tea belonging to the second plaintiff. The consignment was insured with the first plaintiff. There was short delivery of goods when it reached the destination. The insurer and the owner of the goods joined following subrogation and sued. The carrier did not dispute the fact that there was short delivery. The insurance surveyor's report was available before the court below. But, on the ground that it has not been proved appropriately, the court below, instead of relying on that, granted compensation based on the amount claimed in the demand. This was challenged before the learned Single Judge under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That first appeal was dismissed. Hence this AFA to the Division Bench under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.
AFA No.56 of 1998 2
evidence in support of the plaint claim. He made reference to the decision of this Court in Associated Transport Company Private Limited v National Insurance Company Ltd. (1989 (1) KLT 386). The second argument is that the rate of interest awarded is excessive. No other grounds raised at hearing.
AFA No.56 of 1998 3
rightly exercised.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No costs, having regard to
the rate of interest imposed.
SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SD/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE
TRUE COPY
css/
p.s.to judge
AFA No.56 of 1998 4
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
&
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
AFA No.56 of 1998
ORDER
6/9/2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the absence of a loss assessor's report precludes reliance on the insurer's claim for short delivery.
Whether the interest awarded under Section 34 of the CPC was excessive in a commercial transaction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Associated Transport Company Private Limited v National Insurance Company Ltd.Referred¶22
Associated Transport Company Private Limited v National Insurance Company Ltd. (1989 (1) KLT 386)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S. Super Transport Company
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Tata Tea Limited
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
