Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 223 (KAR)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. EAST INDIA TRANSPORT AGENCIES

1991-03-21

M.P.CHANDRAKANTARAJ

body1991
M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) SMALL Causes Courts Act is by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is Oriental Insurance Company limited. It presented the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,993. 85 from the defendant - East India transport Agency in view of the fact that certain goods insured by the plaintiff for the consignor were not delivered. In that circumstance, insured issued notice under Section 10 of the Common carriers Act and Insurance Company settled the claim in the sum of Rs, 5,093. 85 as against the claim of the consignor in the sum of Rs. 6,124. 88, therefore the insurer presented the suit. ( 2 ) THE facts themselves are not in dispute. The suit came to be dismissed on the short ground that the consignor also was not made a party. Plaintiff was also found fault with inasmuch as the cause title disclosed was written by the Regional Manager, while the Deputy manager had signed and verified the plaint averments. ( 3 ) ONCE the Insurance Company settled the claim, all rights which the consignor had to recover the value of the property entrusted to the carrier, as damages automatically ensures to the benefit of the insurer. He need not seek a separate assignment of the right to sue. Once the common carrier is aware that the goods are insured, his liability will be in relation to both the consignor and the insurer. ( 4 ) IN that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore that a separate assessment is necessary would be illegal and is therefore liable to be interfered with under Section 18 of the Small courts Act. ( 5 ) THAT the plaint avverments are verified and signed by a person other than a person who is said to belong to plaintiff-company is only a technical defect as long as it is demonstrable that he had authority to verify the plaint would be sufficient to cure any defect. In fact power-of-attorney has now been produced. In the light of the conclusion reached by me as above, revision petition is allowed, order under Revision is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower court for disposal of the suit claim in accordance with law. --- *** --- .