KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) SUITS were filed by plaintiffs-1 and 2 against the defendant, the petitioner herein, to recover a certain sum of money. The 1st plaintiff is a company that is trading in tea and the 2nd plaintiff is an insurance company. The defendant/petitioner was carrying on business as a transport contractor within the meaning of carriers Act, 1865. The 1st plaintiff entrusted consignment of tea to the defendant for transportation from calcutta to bangalore. The defendant accepted the said consignment. The consignment was also insured with the 2nd plaintiff by the 1st plaintiff. It was noticed that the goods that were delivered were in a damaged condition and also there was some shortage. The survey report also gave an opinion that the damage was due to rough handling of the goods in transit. The 1st plaintiff issued notice to the petitioner-defendant and made a claim for the loss sustained by the 1st plaintiff. The defendant did not settle the amount claimed by the 1st plaintiff. Consequently the 1st plaintiff lodged claim with the 2nd plaintiff in terms of the insurance policies. The 2nd plaintiff, namely, the insurance company settled the claim of the 1st plaintiff in full. The 1st plaintiff has subrogated All its rights in favour of the 2nd plaintiff by executing letter of subrogation. The 2nd plaintiff therefore issued notice to the defendant-petitioner calling upon it to pay the amount which was payable to the 1st plaintiff under insurance policies, which was not accepted. Accordingly, the 2nd plaintiff filed the suits against the defendant calling upon it to pay the sum that was paid to the 1st plaintiff in terms of the insurance policies. The suits are now pending before the respective small cause courts judges, Bangalore city. ( 2 ) THE defendant has filed applications in each of the suits challenging the jurisdiction of the small cause courts. The defendant has challenged the jurisdiction of the small cause courts relying on section 8 of the Karnataka small cause courts Act, 1964 read with Articles 29 and 31 of the schedule to the act. Section 8 of the act reads as follows:"8. Cognizance of suits by courts of small causes. (1) a court of small causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a court of small causes. Section 8 of the act reads as follows:"8. Cognizance of suits by courts of small causes. (1) a court of small causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a court of small causes. (2) subject to the exceptions specified in the schedule and to the provisions of any law for the time being in. force, All suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a court of small causes: provided that the state government, in consultation with the high court, may by notification, direct that All suits of which the value does not exceed ten thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a court of small causes mentioned in the notification. "articles 29 and 31 of the schedule to the act read as follows:"suits excepted from the cognizance of court of small causes xxx xxx xxx (29) a suit for general average loss or salvage; xxx xxx xxx (31) a suit on a policy of insurance or for the recovery of any premium paid under any such policy;"the petitioner contended before the trial court that in view of the above provisions the court of small causes although having pecuniary jurisdiction cannot take cognizance of the suits on the ground that the suits are based on policies of insurance. It was further contended by the defendant-petitioner that the suits were at any rate for general average loss or for salvage which could come under Article 29. In any event the court of small causes shall not take cognizance of the suits. The learned small cause judge rejected the contentions of the defendant petitioner. The reason of the learned small cause judge was that from a mere perusal of the case of the plaintiffs it can be seen that these are suits filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant to recover the money on account of misconduct and negligence on the part of the defendant in transporting the consignment entrusted to it. Article 31 of the schedule to the act refers to a suit on a policy of insurance. The question that will have to be considered is whether the suit filed by the insurance company against the defendant-petitioner is directly or indirectly a suit on a policy of insurance. Article 31 of the schedule to the act refers to a suit on a policy of insurance. The question that will have to be considered is whether the suit filed by the insurance company against the defendant-petitioner is directly or indirectly a suit on a policy of insurance. If it could be established that the 2nd plaintiff-insurance company has put itself into the shoes of the consignor, namely, the tata tea limited, it would be difficult to hold that this is not a suit on a policy of insurance. Admittedly there is no privity of contract between the insurance company and the carrier. The insurance company had to reimburse for the loss incurred by the consignor on account of the alleged damages. It is on the basis of the insurance policy that the tata tea limited was able to reimburse itself for the alleged damages. If there was no policy of insurance in favour of the tata tea limited, the tata tea limited would have had to take appropriate steps to recover the loss against the carrier. It is only on account of the indemnity of the insurance company the alleged damages were reimbursed. It is only in this context that the insurance company is suing the carrier. According to the insurance company, it has stepped into the shoes of the tata tea limited and in that capacity has now sought to file a suit against the carrier. If there was no insurance policy, the insurance company could never have stepped into the shoes of the 1st plaintiff. Since there is no privity of contract between the insurance company and the carrier, it is very clear that the insurance company is seeking to sue the carrier by stepping into the shoes of the tata tea limited. It is clear that these are suits indirectly on policies of insurance. Although they may not be suits directly on policies of insurance it is no doubt true that the whole cause of action of the 1st plaintiff against the carrier emanates from the policies of insurance. The insurance company could not have maintained a suit against the carrier independent of the policy of insurance. It is the policy of insurance which gives the insurance company the right to maintain a suit. The insurance company could not have maintained a suit against the carrier independent of the policy of insurance. It is the policy of insurance which gives the insurance company the right to maintain a suit. In these circumstances I have no hesitation to hold that the court of small causes shall not take cognizance of the suits since taking cognizance of the suits would be contrary to the provisions of section 8 of the Karnataka small cause courts act read with Article 31 of the schedule to the said act. Accordingly, I hold that the small cause court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The small cause court will return the plaints in All these cases to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs may approach the court of competent jurisdiction who will take the case on file in accordance with law. Since this order has been rendered holding for the first time that the court of small causes has no jurisdiction, the plaintiffs will be put to some hardship on the question of delay, if any. The delay, if any, in presenting the suit before the court of competent jurisdiction shall be condoned in accordance with law bearing in mind section 14 of the limitation act. The revision petitions are allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .