JUDGMENT : P.K. Shamsuddin, J. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 55 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge's of Cochin is the Appellant in this Appeal. The suit was for recovery of damages. The lower court after considering the evidence passed a decree in favour of the 1st plaintiff for realisation of a sum of Rs. 34,684.34 from the 1st defendant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation and with proportionate costs of the suit. 2. The 1st Plaintiff is a Government company which is engaged in General Insurance Business. On 9-10-1985 the 1st plaintiff issued a policy of insurance for the goods consigned by the 2nd plaintiff to the 2nd defendant. The goods insured consisted of one load of coconut oil dispatched by the 2nd plaintiff to the 2nd defendant, through the 1st defendant under lorry receipt No. 10472 dated 8-10-1985 issued by the 1st defendant. The goods weighed 10,840 Kgs. and the value of the goods was Rs. 2,00,000/-. The 1st defendant accepted the goods on 8-10-1985 for transporting it from Cochin to Bombay to deliver the same to the 2nd defendant. The goods were carried in bulk in a tank mounted on carrier MMK 3445. The truck met with an accident at about 3 a.m. on 10-10-1985 at a place near Yellapur. The vehicle was tilted and the oil over flew from the valves on top of the tank. There was also leakage from the last compartment of the tank. The 2nd plaintiff arranged for a survey on the spot in the presence of the agents of the 1st defendant and the surveyor estimated the weight of the cocoanut oil over flew through the valves on the top of the tank and also leaked through the cracks developed in the last compartment of the tank as 1980 kgs. The driver of the 1st defendant certified the loss and the 1st defendant issued a short damage certificate on 7-11-1985 admitting the loss of 1980 kgs. of cocoanut oil. It is also the 2nd plaintiff's case that it had to incur Rs. 2,000/- by way of expenses for supervising the salvage operation, and it suffered a total loss of Rs. 38,522 34. of cocoanut oil. It is also the 2nd plaintiff's case that it had to incur Rs. 2,000/- by way of expenses for supervising the salvage operation, and it suffered a total loss of Rs. 38,522 34. The 2nd plaintiff submitted a claim bill to the 1st defendant for payment towards damages on 8-10-1985 and sent a notice to the 1st defendant demanding payment towards damages. It was also averred in the plaint that the cause for short delivery of the goods was owing to the negligence, carelessness and improper handling of the 1st defendant, his employees or agents. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant had not taken proper care to transport it to Bombay and deliver it to the 2nd defendant in good condition and without loss. The 2nd Plaintiff filed a claim before the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff in full and final settlement of the claim of the 2nd plaintiff paid Rs. 36,272/- to the 2nd plaintiff, for the loss of 1880 kgs. of cocoanut oil. The 2nd plaintiff also executed a letter of subrogation in respect of the loss of 1880 kgs. of cocoanut oil from the goods insured, and a special power of attorney in favour of the 1st plaintiff. It is in these circumstances that the 1st plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of the plaint amount. 3. The 2nd defendant remained ex parte. The 1st defendant filed a written statement repudiating his liability for damages. He also contended that the suit is not maintainable, since the persons who signed and verified the plaint is not competent to represent the plaintiff in these proceedings. It was further alleged in the written statement that the 2nd plaintiff had no title or interest over the goods entrusted for carriage, and the power of attorney obtained by the 1st plaintiff from the 2nd plaintiff is not admissible, and that it was not admitted that the 2nd plaintiff was a registered firm or the weight of the consignment was 10,840 Kgs, or the value of the goods was Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, it was admitted that the vehicle met with an accident resulting in leakage from the tank. 2,00,000/-. However, it was admitted that the vehicle met with an accident resulting in leakage from the tank. It is the further case of the 1st defendant that the goods were never surveyed by anybody and no notice of survey was given to the defendant, and the driver of the lorry was not competent to issue any certificate regarding the loss. No shortage certificate was issued by the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any amount as survey charges or expenses for traveling. The competency of the 2nd plaintiff to execute any letter of subrogation in favour of the 1st plaintiff and the admissibility of the same were also challenged. 4. In support of the claim the plaintiff was examined as PW 1 and Exts. A1 to A13 were marked. No body was examined on behalf of the 1st defendant and no document was marked on its behalf. 5. It is not disputed that the 2nd plaintiff consigned the goods to the 2nd defendant on 8-10-1985. The lorry receipt Ext. A1 would indicate that the 2nd plaintiff entrusted the goods having a weight of 10,840/- kgs. of cocoanut oil with the 1st defendant-carrier to deliver the same to the 2nd defendant. On 7-11-1985 the 1st defendant issued Ext. A3 certificate admits thing that the weight of the cocoanut oil entrusted was 10,840/- kgs. and that the vehicle met with an accident near Yallapur on 10-10-1985, and that the loss as per survey report was 1880 kgs. of cocoanut oil. The 1st defendant challenged the genuineness of Ext. A3 certificate is not genuine. The 2nd plaintiff submitted a claim bill evidenced by Ext. A4 before the 1st plaintiff Insurance Company on 9-11-1985 for a sum of Rs. 38,522.34/- on different counts including the value of short delivered goods, survey expenses, salvage charges and traveling expenses. The 2nd plaintiff sent claim bill to the 1st defendant carrier on 8-11-1985, which is evidenced by Ext. A5. As per Ext. A6 the 2nd plaintiff demanded settlement of the claim for the damages. As per Ext. A7 receipt an amount of Rs. 36,272/- was paid by the 1st plaintiff in settlement of the claim. Ext. The 2nd plaintiff sent claim bill to the 1st defendant carrier on 8-11-1985, which is evidenced by Ext. A5. As per Ext. A6 the 2nd plaintiff demanded settlement of the claim for the damages. As per Ext. A7 receipt an amount of Rs. 36,272/- was paid by the 1st plaintiff in settlement of the claim. Ext. A9 is the letter of subrogation executed by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the 1st plaintiff, assigning and transferring all their rights, title and interest in respect of the goods lost in favour of the 1st plaintiff. P W 1 deposed that he had occasion to peruses the partnership deed and that the 2nd plaintiff is a registered firm and in the circumstances there is no substance in the contention that the suit was not maintainable for want of registration of Partnership. Further really relief is claimed in favour of the 1st plaintiff and in this view of the matter also the above contention has no force. The Managing Partner of the firm has executed Ext. A9 and Ext. A10 is the special power of attorney executed by the plaintiff, and therefore the contention that the 1st plaintiff is not competent to sue is also without any foundation. Ext. A-11 is the suit notice and the contention that no notice was sent before filing the suit is also untenable. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that there is no evidence to show that it was as a result of negligence or carelessness or improper handling of the appellant or its employees, there was short delivery. The carrier's liability to compensate for the loss of goods is absolute and the only exception is in the case of loss occurring as a result of the act of God and therefore this contention of the learned Counsel is also untenable. It is well settled that it is open to either the consignor or the consignee to file a suit for short delivery of the goods and the argument that the 2nd plaintiff was not competent to file a suit claiming damages is also devoid of any merit. The appellant accepted the right and value of the goods declared by the consignee and issued Ext. The appellant accepted the right and value of the goods declared by the consignee and issued Ext. A1 receipt and therefore it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant had only stated the weight declared by the consignor and did not verify weight and that therefore was not liable to compensate on the basis of the weight declared by the consignor. In Ext. A3 there is clear admission of the quantity of oil short-delivered. There is no merit in the Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.