ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. Member
1. This is a revision against the order passed by the State Commission, Chennai. The Respondent had entrusted to the petitioner, a consignment of silk sarees worth Rs. 2,87,400/- on 31.5.96 to be transported to Ernakulam and effect delivery to the consignee namely, jayalakshmi Silk House. The Petitioner had charged a sum of Rs. 585/- for such transportation. The consignment of silk sarees sent to the consignee, Jayalkshmi Silk House at Ernakulam was short delivered silk sarees to the extent of Rs. 1,64,550/-. Only argument advanced was that the petitioner had done that he could do for proper carriage/agency i.e Southern Railways. We have examined the reasons given by the District Forum in fixing the responsibility on petitioner as well as by the District Forum and the State Commission. The petitioner has been directed to make the payment to the Respondent No.1 to together with interest at the rate of 165 per annum from 7.3.1998
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has cited the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 66), which was a case of delay due to re-verification of visa which is quite different from non-delivery of goods. That case is, therefore, not similar to the present case. if any, it is the ration of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Patel Roadways Vs. Birla Yamaha Limited:-
“The liability of a common carrier under the Carriers Act is that of an insurer. This position is made further clear by the provision in Section 9, in which it is specifically laid down that in a case of claim of damage for loss to or deterioration of goods entrusted to a carrier it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish negligence.”
3. We do not find any merit in this revision. The Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.