CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) WHEN this matter was heard at length last time, we recorded in the order sheet as follows :"we have heard Mr. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. M. Raghavendra Rao. The entire defence has rested on the assumption that the plaintiff has not proved the quantum of damage which it is required under law to prove. This argument has two limbs to it, one is that damaged batteries had invoice value before damage and a salvage value after damage. Salvage value has been taken in the absence of the defendant and without notice to him between the insurer, the 2nd plaintiff and the insured, the 1st plaintiff. Therefore, that is an arbitrary fixation. The damaged batteries were worth much more than the salvage value fixed. Defendant has not adduced any evidence as to the probable value of the damaged goods, though it is in evidence that Ex. P. 9 is a report to which, prima facie, representative of the defendant is a party. It is fairly conceded by the counsel that if the defendant's representative was a party to Ex. P. 9, then defendant has no case. We give four weeks time to the learned Counsel to produce a certified copy of Ex. P. 9. " ( 2 ) TODAY, we had the advantage of seeing the certified copy of Ex. P. 9. It is a report submitted by M/s Mitra S. K. Private ltd. , Cargo Inspectors, Analytical and Consulting chemists, Visakhapatnam. From the opening paragraph, it is clear that the firm's representative went to the spot of the accident for assessing the damage done to the batteries accompanied by a representative of the insured as well as ihe representative of the carrier. The penaltimate paragraph indicates that the salvage value could not be fixed on the spot. Having regard to the damage done to the batteries by the accident and the opinion of the representative of the insured, 2nd plaintiff was of the view that such value could be ascertained only when the batteries were examined in the factory premises of 1st plaintiff. Therefore, it was opined by the surveyors that the salvage value should be done later at the factory premises of the 1st plaintiff and the claim may be settled as per the invoice value, less the salvage value. Therefore, it was opined by the surveyors that the salvage value should be done later at the factory premises of the 1st plaintiff and the claim may be settled as per the invoice value, less the salvage value. ( 3 ) WHAT, therefore, emerges is though the representative of the defendant-carrier may not have signed the report, that he was a party to the spot inspection is beyond doubt. If he was aware of the reason why salvage value was not arrived at on the spot, then the principal should be credited with the knowledge of the same. Therefore, the defendant ought to have taken steps to establish the real salvage value if he claimed it as deductible out of the total damages to which he was liable. If he did not do it, he only is to blame. ( 4 ) IT is too late, to now contend before us that Ex. P. 9 was not proved and therefore we should not act upon such document. It was received and marked as an Exhibit and therefore, we do not see in the Judgment under appeal an objection raised anywhere for the admission of Ex. P. 9. If the defendant failed to elicit any useful information in the cross-examination of P. W. 2 it cannot be said that the salvage value had not been fixed. ( 5 ) WE do not see any merit in this appeal. Therefore, we reject it. --- *** --- .