{"id":3015,"date":"2009-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-16T18:08:04","modified_gmt":"2016-01-16T12:38:04","slug":"shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Shiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: N.Kumar And C.R.Kumaraswamy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDated this the 8\" day of D\u20acC.\u20acII1b\u20ac1'. 2009 \nPRESENT .\nTI-IE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N     A<\/pre>\n
AND  _ _  fj  _ L.\n<\/p>\n
THE HON’!-‘SLE MR. JUSTICE C ZRT f
\nREGULAR FIRST v.r~;_;?EAL”N.o’.'” 2.77  :2
\nBETWEEN: 4 A H
\nShiva Transport. Fleet  g ‘  H’<\/p>\n
and Transport Contractors’ ;\n<\/p>\n
Door N0.1O9, T.VChan(i.17a:an=.LayQ%..n.’ ”<\/p>\n
RMC :’R0a.d. I3Veii’.Fiff1L\u00a3:\u00a7\u20ac:aj\u00e9’.”~}\u00a7\u00e9p1*<:s-\u00e9med
\nHereinby its Pa1'U1__i:r_ Sr; Khan …AppeI1am<\/p>\n
~ VV'(ByV 'VS1fi",G.V"\u20ac3VhaI1ka1' Goud, Advocate]<\/p>\n
    A   …..\n<\/p>\n
  _ ‘V’N_ati611;ii’Textiles Corporation<\/p>\n
 K,’f{V.””and M} Linmed, No.20\/2
\nNag\u00e9._;)A;321 Mansion. K.I'”‘l. Road
\n ..Shar~i’thinaga1*. Bangalore M 560 027
\n.. By its Unit Mills Sri Yaliamma Cotton
\n“WOOIQI1 and Silk Mills, Tolhunse<\/p>\n
ii\/’<\/p>\n
Davangere Taluk. by its Subrogee
\nthe 2″” Plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
2 National Insurance Company<\/p>\n
Limited, having its registered Office<\/p>\n
At No.3, Middleton Street<\/p>\n
Calcutta — 700 071   ~<\/p>\n
Representecl by its 1<\/p>\n
Regional Office, .\n<\/p>\n
Chigateri Mercantile Buildirtg <\/p>\n
Davangere.   ._ _ ._  <\/p>\n
by its Divisiortai NIaI’lE1g\u20acI:’*~__ V’ t  V}.’.Res’por1dents<\/p>\n
(By Sri O .}Tv’\u00a3a11(3Vsl1.. A’d.\\_roe;1–\u20ac:e for R2:
\nResponder1f’\u00a7’;41 s’er:\\V\/ed}, _<\/p>\n
Ttus zaryx {\ufb02ed thidcf Sectunz EH3 of (zpc: agahist the
\njudgment a;11Ci”\u00abT:._decre_e :; dated “30~9_g2002 passed In OS
\nDkL103\/1997 o\ufb01 the rue of \ufb02\ufb01eil Add\ufb01hnn\ufb02 (nvu Judge
\n(Sr.Dn.}. E’21vajig.e1’e;’–\u00abdeea\u00e9eeihgAt-hezsuit for recovery of damages.<\/p>\n
Tthis\u00e9tRFA’=Coh:iin:,g\u00a7’zyirt for hearing this day, N. KUMAR J
\ndelivered the foltowingz <\/p>\n
 %tgJUDGMENT …..\n<\/p>\n
 V   T.  is by the ciet”er1d2mt challe-r1gi11g the judgment<\/p>\n
 deC1’ee–.Voi\u00a3 the trial Court which has decreed the suit of the<\/p>\n
 p1aintivfi”:.fo1* a sum of Rs.2,45,408–00 with cost and future<\/p>\n
V’ iraterest. at 18% pa. from the ciate of the suit till realisation.<\/p>\n
Lu<\/p>\n
2. For the purpose of convenience. the vpa1_ftfie_Vs are<\/p>\n
referred to as they are refe1*red to in the c)1’iginal__sti’it.;.’ .. ” \u00bb<\/p>\n
3. The first plaintiff is the
\nCorporation and the second
\nCompany Ltd, The first plaintif’fIobt.:ained ajoolicty.\n<\/p>\n
Insurance with Inland  iron]    llplaintifi
\ncovering the risk of t1fe:’;1.sport.at’ion:’oi:”go’odslrom Un.it Mills
\nand Marketing Divisions  to any where in
\nIndia and \\r’iee–lt!e–rsa  inter depot, inter<\/p>\n
division, i_n1.ei'”~sho_wi7oonIilti.espa’:.Ches and inter processing units
\nand from various”siipf)i–i.ei’s. ali over India to its Unit Mills and
\nMarketingtinits tii_1’oL1ghQ-tit India. The defendant. is a common<\/p>\n
carrier engaged in the business of carriage of goods from one<\/p>\n
 place  on hire or reward. The Unit Mills at the Eirst.<\/p>\n
 “_.Yellamma Cotton Woolen and Silk Mills.<\/p>\n
‘l’e.Ia.l’1unse.’;L:..DaS}anagge1’e Taiuk entrust.ed on Ii.07.l994 the<\/p>\n
SC’I*i’t’3CI1;!.I.f,’.-iZ”.”I\u00a7__{OO(jS under stock transfer memo to its sales depot.<\/p>\n
 at nie1.a”gaon of Nasik Dist,riet, Maharashtra State. for<\/p>\n
Ly.\n<\/p>\n
transportation from Davanagere to Melagaon V_\\ri_de the
\ndefendants goods consignment note hearing
\ndated 11.07.1994. The Schedule -~A
\nvehicle bearing No. CTU 3804s.: “Fhe  ‘toe.
\ndefendant got wet in rain water
\ndelivered the wet and damaQ;e_d’-bValesA’tri_theV
\nMelagoan and the Same    the goods
\nconsignment. note of  damaged goods were
\ngot. assessed Uii”0l,tgh  and surveyor.\n<\/p>\n
Sri. RR. Melitta  fthjevllsaidlllsunreyrir inspected the
\nda1nal5Ied’-  survey report cum assessment of
\nloss rep\u00abci1″1.=_l._’    Filed a claim with the defendant<\/p>\n
()r1u3?2.0~8.i99’4’~Alr’hit>l4: was duly served on the deiendant. on<\/p>\n
.A ’26.:O8,l9S4f’and there was no reply. However. the defendant<\/p>\n
  said damage by letter dated 20.07.1994.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter\u00bb the first plaintiff lodged their claim with the second<\/p>\n
 np,1aintif1″.for the loss of goods due to the above said reason. The<\/p>\n
“‘._set.*ond plaintifl\ufb02 after coxnplianee of at} the formalities of the<\/p>\n
~”CC)T1diti0l1S oi” the above referred policy, settled the Claim of the<\/p>\n
‘JV<\/p>\n
first plaintiff for Rs.2.45.408-00. The payment was made
\nthrough cheque and the relative disbursement. yo.u_ehder_vwas
\nobtained. Thereafter the first plaintiff
\nright. title, interest in the
\nschedule goods in favour of t.he:’\u00bb.__seo’ond
\ncompany. The suit is filed hay “the sec;.r._)nd <\/p>\n
of the unit of the first plaintiff.  ff<\/p>\n
4. The defei’1’da1j1t _asm_ae’:ll;.oVri*1-moii clarrifer is legally<\/p>\n
bound to reimburse the loss vxt;he’_1plai11t’:ii’f because of<\/p>\n
its Iiegligeitt .aeli:vi:’n..loss. as the defendant failed to take
\ndue careland preeaution\u00e9lllifahieh a prudent man could take while<\/p>\n
trat,t’s1ljorti11gltheilgoods entrusted to it and also failed i.o<\/p>\n
.A ‘1*e.ir;1btl1′:se,tii..e loss. The second plairtiifi proposed 60% of the<\/p>\n
 ~los_s_\u00aband”_~vsei’it:”letters to defendant. to settle the matter out of<\/p>\n
the defendant did not respond. Therefore the<\/p>\n
hi AAp?:esen’L”.s1.1it was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,45.408-O0.<\/p>\n
”’._being the aniount ofioss sustained by the first plaintiff.<\/p>\n
\\\\\/T<\/p>\n
(3<\/p>\n
5. After service of summoris. the del’eridlaht. filed
\ndetailed written statemeiit. It was specifically
\nthe allegations in the plaint that the
\ncarrier engaged in the business
\nplace to another on hire or Vreyvardl\u00a7’—-\\\u00a7\/last speeifiCa’lly
\nfalse. They admitted that U11itV”iiitlLills atrii\u00a71ah\u00a7i11V\u00a7;;;eVVtithe first
\nplaintiff on l1.07.l994%’er1trt_isteddo-:tthe–ly’dE’;.ehedille\u00a5Al’goods Lilld\ufb01l’
\nstock and t.ransfei’ memo  Melagoan of .Nasik
\nDistrict, Mahgarashtra  from Davanagere<\/p>\n
to l\\\/lelago\u00e9ii railed'”\u00e91’e~iTe1ict;ftnt”s.._QCRNote bearing No.OO353 dated
\n1 l.’7.lV99z\u20act  theme and the schedule A. goods
\nwere loaded ihi.y_a-,Vehit:le’\u00ab bearing No.CTU 3804 are hereby<\/p>\n
admitted  t.r”L:eVa–1’1d=.eo1<i'ect. However. they denied the damage<\/p>\n
  olv7V:i._lhe;b_goo.dS ()r1"aee–o'L1ni of rain, delivery of wet and damaged<\/p>\n
' ybalye and  said damage being assessed by surveyor and<\/p>\n
  his report. They also denied lodging of the<\/p>\n
Claim   plaiiitill with the defe-iida1'1t and thereafter claim<\/p>\n
it *he__i'ng settled by the deferidazitz. They have denied their liability<\/p>\n
,,  to. rriake good the said loss.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. Alter denying the allegations made in the plaint.
\nthey have  out their case in detail. They contend that
\ndefendant is a transport commission agent and  been
\nengaged in introducing the goods owner to the
\nany such transporters for the purpose of
\ngoods from one place to another it.\n<\/p>\n
On 11.07.1994, the ol”ficia1s_ot’  pi\u00a7,mtiI’;’s
\napproached this defendant to  av.tr11_el’c.i”or lpnrposellof
\ntransportation of theirtproduietlllirontltkiyanagere Melagaon.<\/p>\n
The defendant introduceddO–fA’_’thet__truck bearing No.<\/p>\n
cm 13804.,’A”sits.__\u00b0Mui<gi1d,_1:ar.' Behal. S\/o KG. Behai of
\nDavanagere tor of the said consignment". by<\/p>\n
recen\/i"11g his eornitiisston. After the truck was taken by the<\/p>\n
first .pl'el1l1I1tVit7\u00a3'\u00ab_ ofiiciallly to their Mill premises. their workers<\/p>\n
  lloadedstne  and sent a stock transfer memo to the official<\/p>\n
of this Vdei'\u00a7g;mdAa11t' through the truck owner. Accordingty for the<\/p>\n
 purposefof payment of hire or transportation charges a.nd for<\/p>\n
1,\/.llj,,v*ertifi.;?ation of the goods in the truck by the tax authorities. this<\/p>\n
ll  u defendant. issued a goods consignment note for tiansportation<\/p>\n
of the said goods with risk of the owner. Accordingly the
\nsecond plaintiff transported his goods through  oi'
\nthe owner as stated above. in short, this  ~21'
\ncommon carrier as alleged by the p;la\u00bbin_t.it'f   his
\nneither the owner nor common l:C."'r'lI'l'\u00a7.L\u20aclI"':l()l"'
\nNo. CTU 3804. Any of thel__e'iaui'n1slltnade_b\ufb01rlllt\u00bbh:e–\u00bb…p}alintii'i'*in
\ncollusion with each other is  n_ot:A'inavihtainablehasvliiagainst this
\ndefendant. This dei'endalnE, is  agent. This
\ndefendant has 'i1{)v'l\u00a7I1():'.IL"'l'f';'(..Zl-gt'?  between the
\nplaintiffs      alleged claim and
\ndisbtilrvsentenf\ufb01-"fifigze' were transported at the owners
\nrisk. lIl'S_tl(',h  the first plaintill" has no right to<\/p>\n
nial;e"a.ny elair_n'beea'use the transportation was not made at<\/p>\n
V ' the CE1;i'.*t'VAl{"l'l;S,.'_l'lSl{. In Case of any claim made by the owners of<\/p>\n
 the  heViYo.i'e any insurance eonipany and before settlement<\/p>\n
oi"'*-ai1yv_v::lain=1; the claim should be approved and eonfirrned by<\/p>\n
 the ealirier or transporter. otherwise there will be no lawful<\/p>\n
ll  settlernent of any claims. it at all there being any claim, it<\/p>\n
___should be made against the owner of the vehicle. Muralidhar<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
Behal. The defendant contends that he is not liable to pay
\nanything to the plaintifl’ as Claimed by the plaint.itl’. The suit is
\ndefective. The plaint is not properly veri\ufb01ed and <\/p>\n
7. The alleged da.mage caused   of
\npercolation of rain water is concerned,
\nthe control of human agency. by.’
\nllamalies of the first plaintiff  pac1l;.,eil.larid
\nthe first plaintiff company.   even<\/p>\n
touching the cover ol”*~the _\u00abgolodsl;f?-yo’-3,gl1e t.rans”porter or his<\/p>\n
employee will iitg\ufb02aiay oi7lfei’i.{.:e and if there is any change in the
\nCoverage or  -the”ti:ah\u00abs’porte1* will be held liable. Under
\nsuch _CiI’C1ll’i1Sxt:’c11″i(J.&*3S. “eitl’1:er the transporter or his employee will<\/p>\n
 3l.Q.t:.’j_l1 the”‘go–o.ds al’ter coverage and seal from the startirig<\/p>\n
‘ ,poi.z1t.~._ 29tt”de”st_inaii0ii point the employees 01’ the first plaintiff<\/p>\n
‘–w.ill.7reino_ve”the seal by making a note in the godown stock<\/p>\n
register tliere2il’tei’ removing the coverage and unload the<\/p>\n
V *oo_;1sigi’i1neI1t,. Hence. the alleged negligent act on part of this<\/p>\n
dlefendant is mere imagination by the plaintiff to suit’ their<\/p>\n
EV\/o<\/p>\n
H}<\/p>\n
Claim. Sufi is barred by Iimitation. Therefore. they sought for<\/p>\n
dismissal of the silii.\n<\/p>\n
8.<\/p>\n
On the aforesaid pieadings. the  fi’;ina.ed<\/p>\n
the following issues:\n<\/p>\n
Whether Plaintiffs prove  ‘Af  “goods <\/p>\n
entrusted to D’ef_er1dar’ii_ ‘jor 1$ransVport.a;i’ion “in<\/p>\n
Malegoan were gc;’:’u}e-:; due torain fin t.heVVi3ransii’?
\nWhether Pihciintiffezh’\ufb01irt–h}erj”prove  assessment of<\/p>\n
V ” T.   a sum o__fRs.2.45.408\/- with
\n‘ the  the Defendant?\n<\/p>\n
 WhetherDeikenaani, proves that he is not {table to
\nVPirzuirViii'[f’s’V’ claim. since transportation vehicle of<\/p>\n
 xscI1.ediiie”V goods was owned by third person<\/p>\n
i ‘ Miiralidfiar Behalf?\n<\/p>\n
Whether this Court has no territorial jun’sd.ict’ion to<\/p>\n
entertain the Suit as stated in W.S. Para No.5?<\/p>\n
ta\/r<\/p>\n
5. Whether Plaintt\ufb02’s Suit is defective due to non
\nimpleading of the owner of goods vehi_Cl.e_l even<\/p>\n
barred by limitation’?\n<\/p>\n
6. What reliefs the parties are er1tit_le__djto?’\n<\/p>\n
9. To substantiate ‘the’~e1ain1A.’v-on  -Vgoiaint\ufb01f.<\/p>\n
the official of the insu__rance c_o_rrip.211’iy_ was ‘exa.mir$\u00a7ed as P.W-1
\nby name Ajay Kumar”S’riarri3.a.{_’  Adproduced 9 documents<\/p>\n
which are marked as  Vto_:[.beha1[‘ of deferidams.<\/p>\n
one  p_a:’tiie1* of the defendants firm was
\nexamiried “as  produced B~Register extract of<\/p>\n
A.R_fT_,C. olTice. llavariagelre as Ex.D~1. showing the ownership<\/p>\n
.  , oi”-tklie i.t17u(tlg ii1\\\u00bb’olve’ti”i:’1 the trarisaction.<\/p>\n
‘    trial Court on appreciation of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
‘=oral’azidudLoeiT::ii1enta1~y evidence on recrord held that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has  that A schedule goods entrusted to defendant for<\/p>\n
2 “L.ransportai.io1i to lvlelagaon were got wet due to rain in the<\/p>\n
‘X\/,<\/p>\n
t.r2msit.. The plainti\ufb02” has also proved the toss 0t’_.__’darI121ge
\neemsed to the goods  in d sum of  is
\nwithin the knowtedge of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
faiied to establish its ease of C<)n'm__1tssiQr1
\ntruck in question was owned by  'd
\nthe defertdant. is 'liable t.'d__15'e1y the'V-rttorteyfdttdttj\ufb01fivteiq
\nCourt has territorial jLtrisdicttortxtie:_adj_t,1dieate_ :t:t1eVAvvdtspute. The<\/p>\n
suit of the p1ai1'1tift' is no1':tdeAfectt'i;fe; t'o'15r:ot"tmpteadirlg the owner<\/p>\n
of the goods vehtele. v_tt1:ef\u00e9;t:1tt is not barred by
\ntime.\n<\/p>\n
11. dd    said judgment. and decree of the<\/p>\n
t1’tatC<)_;1rt, t'.t1e_ det'e11d.:mt 113$ preferred this \u00a3tpp\u20ac:2'd.<\/p>\n
     A.’1’t1e’VIe’etrtied Counsel for the appeitant assatltng the<\/p>\n
  .4\ufb01\u00a33,d'””de(:1*ee of the trial Court contended that the<\/p>\n
de_Ienda13te”\u00a7y’aVs onty E1 eommisstort agent and not a transporter.<\/p>\n
 Theretforite the defendant cannot. be held liable for the toss or<\/p>\n
 .det1″tjage Caused to the goods while t.ransi.t. Seeondty. it was;<\/p>\n
contended ihai. the defendant. received ihe ctolisign\ufb01iexli for<\/p>\n
i.ransport.ati0n with an express condition that  \ufb01:ies:fe~nt!.\u00a71111<\/p>\n
will not be liable for any such occasioned’7du1’i:1gvi’it’af:’si1v;\u00ab.,<\/p>\n
Therefore, even if there is any cliani\u00e9ige, .;the’ \u00abgoods were?’<\/p>\n
transported ai. the risk of the first  <\/p>\n
‘liable to make good the loss.\n<\/p>\n
13. In the light of _i’.heu._aierese1’id-[.scis and rival<\/p>\n
contentions, the pointsihai. agrise\u00a3fo19’e\u00a7m\u00bbsi:1eraii0n are:<\/p>\n
   defendant is a<\/p>\n
i ._ cVummI.'”Sesi<")n_. or a public carrier ?<\/p>\n
 A{2'}a  ".–\u00abi1\u00a5ie3r1 there is an express stipulation in
\n agreemeni ihai" the defendant is not<\/p>\n
i  to make good the loss, wheiher the
\nma! Court' wasjiistified in decreeing the suit<\/p>\n
Qf the piainiiff '?\n<\/p>\n
POINT NO: 1<\/p>\n
I4. Ex.P–i. the Goods Consignment. Note–“‘–..Ioearing
\nNo.0O353, which bears the signature ofD.Ww1
\nPartner of Shiva Transport. Agency. shows
\nRs.4.71.0vO0 received as Freight c\u00e9h-ai'”ge’s\u00abc
\nnoted in the document. like desti>f;.;tt.i’o_1i’.’V  2
\nMalagaon, particuiars of  ._i_s’   yarn
\n[Cotton], 7.5 tons was, 3oe de.1’i\\}ered  door. et.c..<\/p>\n
shows that the goods vtfei*e plaintiff to the<\/p>\n
defend\u00e9init’. -tfoifj tr\u00e9t:t9:spo’1″t,sitio1i\u00ab’\u00e9;s'”the defendant: was a public
\nearriei;  in which the goods were loaded.\n<\/p>\n
do not beio1″1g t.o”–de'[‘eiicigiitt and it belongs to Mui’alidhai* Beha].<\/p>\n
as “clc\u00e9trV\u00a31*o.n1″Ex.\u00a7)–1. the first piaintiff has no privity of<\/p>\n
 co’nt’ra5c’tA with the  of the truck. Goods were entrusted to
\n‘ V1V.h’c–.cdefei1datn’i for transportation. who in turn has hired the<\/p>\n
 .v’eih_ice1e’ ‘i’:i’f’Q1f’i1″V’}..\\YA1’tE1’El1iCH1’c1f Behal. the owner of the truck. The<\/p>\n
defeI1d_.;tnto.VA.:’~h’as coiiected the freight charges and not the<\/p>\n
 con1rniVs:si()n for bring about the eontore3.ct’.. Ex.P–3. the letter<\/p>\n
tt\/<\/p>\n
Io
\nexecuted by the first piaintift’ in favour of the second plairitiff.
\nIt is the1*eal’i’er. ihe present suit. is fiied. The defendant as a<\/p>\n
public carrier, is bound to answer the Claim of the piai’1=i.t_.i’ff and<\/p>\n
make good the loss sustained by them in resp_ee.i <\/p>\n
erltrusted for being t:1’ansported. Th.e.i’e_i’o1’e_-‘the” “ti’i;1iV”CQtirt iwas _ <\/p>\n
justified in holding that the deieiidant i2.ot~ o’o:ii-mis.sion .<\/p>\n
agent”, it is a public ca1*1*:e_r’,’—-.__t1-ansportationih A\u00bb.Q{..,tHiV1e3
\nentrusted were admitted ai1d__1_iabi_11″;y oi”,i.’h–e’:pub1:iC Carrier is
\nabsolute and is liabie to*–.}:iayA the 2saVid*–afmo’u_nt.<\/p>\n
POIN’i’_ N0: 2 ‘   _V
\nI5. ‘  i Reiian.C'”e.Vis,. on Clause 5 which is on the back
\nsidegoi’ E}x.P~2;”\\,7qh’ieli reads as under:
\n‘ A. The “” “Company is not responsible for
\n~.__’Ci:fcvz,\u00a3in.si’ance beyond its control such as accident’,<\/p>\n
\u00ab  fire  etc. ”\n<\/p>\n
The fact that the goods entrusted for trar1spo1’t.a_’Li_or1 was
\ndamaged. is admitted in the ietier written at <\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“‘ This is to 1’z1j’orm y()li:\u00a5’I}’1Cli:’4I’ii’\u00a3\u00a73″CQTiSiQ’-hiiigffiihxx: A<\/p>\n
booked under  m..-\u00a7:’~ iv
\ndelivered in wet cofidvii.’i{)f1 {E36
\n150 bags} due to i1eaoy\u00ab.fainVs. e’oer;V:fii:o1,Lwa\u00a31 we
\nhave coLve1’ed;:Li:iiI1  tjf1″e%.\u00a2bags  wet
\nwhich was beyon__d’    .\n<\/p>\n
  the “eof1,;5ignr\ufb01e.r1t”  booked under<\/p>\n
 we not liable for any<\/p>\n
;:zamc;gz\u00a3’j’z-o_ss.,:rtc;;.a:;—9:1 in this regard ”<\/p>\n
     “i’hefefo–re\u00ab.’ danlage to “the goods enuusied is not in<\/p>\n
V   —liabiiity to pay the damages is avoided on {he<\/p>\n
.gro’uI1d thfagieeeithe consignment was booked under the owners
\nrisk. .. The ciause set out above do not. show ih3.i’ the goods were<\/p>\n
:seni\u00ab at the owner’s risk. All that it. says i.s the Company is 110%<\/p>\n
V’:I’esponsib1e for eireuiilstanees beyond its control such as,<\/p>\n
iv<\/p>\n
accident, fire, delay. etc… Damage to the goods \\k’;’iLS–\u00ab.>110l on<\/p>\n
aeeount: of any aeeicient. fire or delay. It was ‘oil’; aC–cfo.Li’iit of<\/p>\n
heavy rains and goods were not properly proizeelteoiticligiriiighthe<\/p>\n
transit. Even ii’. in spite of tE1Ff_J\u00e9itill’I1.bl:ing. _eov_eredCtol’vthef<\/p>\n
goods. if the bags were wet. it
\nbeyond the Control of the }:l>lub:li’e1_Mbea1;r”:er_f. ‘  tliat.
\ngoods entrusted were not  lwivth iarpaulin and
\ntherefore not all the  (lamaged, it is only
\n66 bags out ..Qlf::i5Q \u00abV:”,;<il\u00a7ot:lldamaged. This is
\nsheer    carrier in not taking
\np1'opelr__A t.o him. Therefore under
\nSCCEiOI1"9\u00abOl. the  the public earrier is liable to<\/p>\n
itiaigjtelgood thl'e…cV_iaIi1'ag'es.<\/p>\n
 A37'; '  _"E'he elelieliidaiit is a public carrier. The provision<\/p>\n
  'lrelalIir;g.__tov illteliiability of the common Carrier for the loss of or<\/p>\n
clarhage to 1-yytlie goods entrusted to him for carriage are to be<\/p>\n
 foui'1dVvi.ri Sections 7. 8 and 9. The liability arises out of breach<\/p>\n
 of duty. The earriei" owes two duties. He owes the duty to<\/p>\n
1}'\/,<\/p>\n
I')<\/p>\n
accept. and carry the goods according t.o his public: p_;'oi'ession<\/p>\n
and, secondly. he owes the duty to deliver the goQk:ls:'jsai'eVly at<\/p>\n
the destination. The carrier may fail to d_e:ii–verA\u00abV'thie–. geod.s<\/p>\n
because they might have been lost \u00bbe.n.__route of n.ia.yA.delivei'. ll<\/p>\n
them in a damaged condition. In ;'eith.ei~A.ease._h'eis liahle'f'?1.iy'yT'he 2<\/p>\n
principle of English Law is that-,_the ea1'i*1er is.:'ali3.so.1tiyteiy liable
\nfor any loss or destruction oi_'___th-eV_go_ods;.'  undertakes the
\nliability of an insurer. sl1o:{iid'4eiVtl1e1*__deli\\\/er the goods or<\/p>\n
pay compensation for, w–i–ei.1f'=loss_aQr'Hdest1':1ie.tion. The liability<\/p>\n
under the  _;"iet."'i.s not eonvi.vr'aet.t'1"a"l. Thus the liability of<\/p>\n
the eai'rie1"  yii=i_ti'e-__o'i' the law and not by Virtue of the<\/p>\n
Contract which he   with the consignor. The position<\/p>\n
A pLtbliC'Atf.A?'1i'Fi\u00e91T_ is absolute and  that of the insurer. Therefore,<\/p>\n
  "liable  the damages sustained by the consignor<\/p>\n
when liie' v.raS unable to transport. and deliver the Consignment<\/p>\n
' iinythe 'eor1dii.ioI: in which it. was entrusted to him.<\/p>\n
lo<\/p>\n
of laxi}  the"'ean.ie as in England. 'l"'herefore the liability of<\/p>\n
18. For {‘.he aI’0resa1id reasons. we do 110\u20ac’.”‘:~;ee any<\/p>\n
ilifirmity in 1.he_jL1c1g111ent and decree passed by_t.h,e \u00bb1~r’iaE’V;~CeyL1rt..<\/p>\n
 the trial Couri on proper appreciatiorl ‘o-1:fVd\u00a2.rae1–..and..<\/p>\n
docunlemary evidence on record; keeping in .n_i1ng:!_Vt11’e Eegale\u00e9. <\/p>\n
position and the legal evidence on 1″e__e0’rdf\ufb01s righ}’i3* decereed the
\nsuit of the piaimiff. In the :*esu.1.fZV–ewe pelss {he :If<)1lAVi3V'Wui1'ig' ordery<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed,   co\u00e9fs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Shiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009 Author: N.Kumar And C.R.Kumaraswamy IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 8″ day of D\u20acC.\u20acII1b\u20ac1′. 2009 PRESENT . TI-IE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N A AND _ _ fj _ L. THE HON’!-‘SLE MR. JUSTICE C ZRT f REGULAR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-16T12:38:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-16T12:38:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3318,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Shiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-16T12:38:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-16T12:38:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-16T12:38:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009"},"wordCount":3318,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009","name":"Shiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-16T12:38:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiva-transport-vs-national-textiles-corporation-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shiva Transport vs National Textiles Corporation on 8 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3015","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}