Allowed

M/S.Raj Petro Specialities Pvt. v. M/S.Universal Logistics

Madras HC14 Nov 2016CS/135/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Civil Court, Madras decreed a suit filed by a manufacturer against a warehouseman and an insurance company for compensation regarding goods destroyed in a warehouse fire. The court held the plaintiff proved their claim based on documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Decree passed for the payment of Rs.84,74,390/- with interest and costs against the insurance company respondent.

M/S.Raj Petro Specialities Pvt. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON: 02.11.2016

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON: 14.11.2016

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶7

CS.No.135 of 2010

¶8

M/s.Raj Petro Specialities P Limited by Managing Director B.J.Nanavati Chennai-10

¶9

Plaintiff

¶10

¶11

M/s.Universal Logistics by its Partner Chandrasekar Chennai 600103

¶12

M/s.Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai-1 Defendants

¶13

Prayer:This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules

¶14

read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC.

¶15

For Plaintiff : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar For Defendants : D1-Set Exparte D2-No Appearance

¶16

JUDGEMENT

¶17

This civil suit has been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against

¶18

the Defendants:-

¶19

a) directing the Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.84,74,390/with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation.

¶20

b) directing the Defendants to pay the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff.

¶21

The case of the Plaintiff, in a nutshell, as set out in the plaint, is as

¶22

¶23

follows:-

¶24

a. The Plaintiff is the registered Company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and supplying various industrial oils and had it manufacturing unit at Manali, Chennai. During the course of its business, the Plaintiff had imported micro crystalline wax, weighing 99,535.48 kgs, in 5 containers from M/s.Sonneborn Inc. USA, vide Invoice Nos.88078103 to 880781106 and 88078132, dated 3.5.2008 and under the Bill of Lading, vide B/L.No.KKLUUS0224243, dated 3.5.2008. The said consignments were bonded in customs bond and kept in the warehouse of the 1^st Defendant Company, by name, Universal Logistics, Manali, vide, warehouse bill of entry No.763442, dated 10.6.2008. The total value of the consignment, including the customs duty was Rs.1,22,42,283. The Defendant had also issued ‘no objection’ to receive the stocks and reserved the area of 150 sq.m for warehousing the consignment and received payment for storage charges @ Rs.60/- per sq.m and charged Rs.36,000/- and also claimed insurance charge of Rs.7,320/-. Consequently, the Plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.43,320/- as storage and insurance charges and a further sum of Rs.5,354.35, as service tax, vide bill dated 18.6.208 in Bill No. Bond 0253/0809.

¶25

b. The Plaintiff had cleared two containers, weighing 39,621.78 kgs vide Ex-Bond bill of entry No.810469, dated 5.8.2008 and the remaining consignment was in possession of the 1st Defendant. Suddenly, by a fire accident that took place on 9.10.2008 in the warehouse of the 1st Defendant,

¶26

¶27

the remaining consignment weighing 59,913.70 kgs bearing the value of Rs.73,69,035/- was completely destroyed. Immediately, on 9.10.2008 itself, the Plaintiff had sent letters, along with the necessary documents, claiming damges, to the 1st Defendant for the loss of the materials in the fire accident and to the 2nd Defendant Insurance Company as well. On 29.10.2008, the 1st Defendant had sent a reply to the Plaintiff, stating that they were pursuing the matter with the 2nd Defendant Insurance Company and asking the Plaintiff to wait for some time for settlement. Again on 18.11.2008, the 1st Defendant had sent a letter to the Customs House Agent of the Plaintiff, confirming that the goods bonded in the warehouse were destroyed due to the said fire accident. The 1st Defendant Insurance Company had, by letter dated 21.11.2008, requested the Plaintiff to contact the 1st Defendant/Policy Holder for further communication, since the papers were not sufficient.

¶28

c. The Plaintiff had, again, sent a letter, dated 17.1.2009 to the 1st Defendant, to settle the claim, as per the survey report filed by the Insurance Company and also sent a letter dated 3.3.2009 to the 2nd Defendant Insurance Company, demanding insurance claim. Since there was no response, the Plaintiff again had sent letters to the Defendants on 24.3.2007 and 17.4.2009, to settle the claim. By letter dated 22.5.2009, the 1st Defendant had informed the Customs House Agent of the Plaintiff, viz. M/s.Sherif and Sons that the Insurance Company had declined to settle the claim for the reason that the warehouse was containing hazarduous goods, whereas the Insurance Company had issued a fire policy for storage of non-hazarduous goods only.

¶29

¶30

Due to the negligence of the 1st Defendant, the goods were destroyed and hence, the Plaintiff is also entitled to profit on the goods lost as per Section 6(3) of the Warehousing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2007. In spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant did not come forward to settle the claim.

¶31

d. The goods destroyed in the fire accident were insured with the 2nd Defendant Insurance Company under Fire and Special Perils Policy Number PSP 00046227-000-00 for a sum of Rs.20,00,00,000/- (Rupees twenty crores only) for the period from 10.3.2008 to 9.3.2009. As per the terms and conditions of the said policy, the non-hazardous goods are covered for the events of fire and special perils and earthquake. The goods of the Plaintiff, which were bonded in the warehouse of the 1st Defendant and destroyed in the fire, are non-hazardous goods. The 2nd Defendant had stated that the claims would be settled only through the 1st Defendant. As per the terms of the insurance policy, the 2nd Defendant is liable to pay the value of the goods damaged in the fire and loss of profit on behalf of the 1st Defendant.

¶32

e. Since the 1st Defendant was in possession of the goods at the time of the accident and having received storage and insurance charges and service tax from the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant is liable to settle the claim of the Plaintiff and can recover the same from the 2nd Defendant Insurance Company. As per the Warehousing (Development and Regulation) Act 2007, the Plaintiff is also entitled for profits from the warehouseman, where the goods were destroyed due to the negligence of the warehouseman. Hence, both the

¶33

¶34

Defendants are severally and jointly liable to pay the claim. In spite of several demands, they did not come forward to settle the claim. Hence, this civil suit has been filed for the reliefs as stated above.

¶35

Though the 1^st Defendant was served as early as on 07.06.2010, no written statement had been filed by the 1^st Defendant and hence, the matter was ordered to be listed under the caption of "Undefended Board". For non filing of the Written Statement, the 1^st Defendant was set exparte and Exparte Evidence was ordered by the order of this court, dated 29.1.2014.

¶36

One G.Manokaran, the Deputy Manager of the Plaintiff Company, had filed the proof affidavit for his chief examination and receipt of 19 documents as documentary evidence to prove the suit claim. In the Evidence, the said G.Manokaran examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P19 as documentary evidence in order to prove the suit claim.

¶37

Originally, this civil suit had been filed only against the 1st Defendant herein and subsequently, the Insurance Company, by name M/s.Chola Mandalam MS General Insurance Company had been impleaded as the 2nd Defendant, by the order of this Court, dated 11.2.2015 made in A.No.2178 of 2014 since even after service of notice, there was no representation for the 2nd Defendant Insurance Company and consequently, the plaint had also been amended by the order of this court dated 30.03.2016, incorporating averments relating to the 2^nd Defendant Insurance Company. Even thereafter, there has been no representation for the 2nd Defendant Insurance Company and no written statement has been filed by them. Even

¶38

¶39

today, there is no representation for the 2nd Defendant Insurance Company.

¶40

Considering the oral and documentary evidence, viz. Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 adduced by PW.1, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has proved the suit claim and hence, the Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs, as asked for. Accordingly, this civil suit is decreed as prayed for against the 2nd Defendant Insurance Company with costs. Time for payment is three months. It is made also clear that the 2nd Defendant Insurance Company is at liberty, after settling the decreetal amount to the Plaintiff within the said period, to recover the same from the 1st Defendant, in a manner known to law.

¶41

14.11.2016

¶42

Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Srcm

¶43

List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Plaintiff:-

¶44

P.W.1 – G.Manokaran

¶45

List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Plaintiff:-

¶46

¶47

S.No	Exhibit	Description	Date
1	Ex.P. 1	Board Resolution	20072016
2	Ex.P. 2	Commercial Invoice from USA concern	03052008
3	Ex.P. 3	Bill of lading	03052008
4	Ex.P. 4	Bill of Entryfor exbond	10062008
5	Ex.P. 5	Application for issue of space availability with the 1^stdefendant	--
6	Ex.P. 6	Bill issued bythe first defendant	18062008
7	Ex.P. 7	Letter addressed to the first defendant	09102008
8	Ex.P. 8	Letter addressed to the Insurance Company	14102008
9	Ex.P. 9	Letter from the first defendant	28102008
10	Ex.P. 10	Letter from the first defendant	21112008
11	Ex.P. 11	Letter to the Insurance Company	18112008
12	Ex.P. 12	Letter from plaintiff’s clearing agent to the first defendant	30102008
13	Ex.P. 13	Letter addressed to the first defendant	17012009
14	Ex.P. 14	Letter addressed to the Insurance Company	03032009
15	Ex.P. 15	Letter addressed to the first defendant	24032009
16	Ex.P. 16	Letter addressed to the first defendant	17042009
17	Ex.P. 17	Letter from the first defendant to the plaintiff’s clearingagent	2205209
18	Ex.P. 18	Legal notice issued bytheplaintiff	28072009
19	Ex.P. 19	Postal acknowledgment card	--

¶48

List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the defendant:-

¶49

¶50

List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the defendant:-

14.11.2016

Srcm

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

Srcm

Pre-Delivery Judgement in CS.No.135 of 2010

¶58

14.11.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in

M/S.Raj Petro Specialities Pvt. v. M/S.Universal Logistics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Raj Petro Specialities Pvt. v. M/S.Universal Logistics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Swamynathan Vs the State by

Ms.R.Rajalakshmi Vs M/s.Noohu Abdul Cadar

A.Usha Vs the World in India Industrial

Hotel Runs Vs v.T.Saleemunissa

A.Alamelu Vs a.Venkatachalam and 3 Others

The Board of Trustee of the Vs Samudra Ship Management