Judgment :- M. Thanikachalam, J. This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,44,447/- with interest on Rs.12,16,100/- from the date of paint till the date of payment. 2. Plaint averments in brief pertaining to the case: - (a) The plaintiff, who is engaged in the manufacture of various solar powered utilities, for the use, in to agricultural sector, imported from, USA 316 Nos of Solar Pawls, by placing an order to one Solarex, Virginia, USA. The Solar panels were forwarded in the first instance to New Delhi by the consignor and the Bill of Entry was also prepared by the customs officials at New Delhi. The plaintiff with the assistance of one Jayem Impex Private Limited cleared the consignment and its total, value was Rs.34,06,194/-. The consignment had to be transported from New Delhi to Chennai and therefore, the consignment was insured with the first defendant under a Marine Insurance Policy bearing Policy, No.041203/21/55/11/64/98 on 12.1.1999 covering the carriage of the said consignment of solar panels from Delhi to Chennai and the total amount insured was Rs.34,06,194/-, wherein it was also agreed that in the event of loss or damages, survey was to be made by the first defendant for ascertaining the actual damage. (b) The first defendant, prior to the insurance of the policy, caused the consignment to be inspected by, its licensed surveyor on 12.1.1999 and the said Surveyor also certified on inspection that there was no visible dam ages at the time of loading of the consignment it the Indra Gandhi International Cargo Terminal. The second defendant/carrier also ac­cepted the said consignment for onward despatch to Chennai as there was no damage to the consignment. (c) The consignment reached Chennai and delivery was taken on 18.1.1999. At that time, it was noticed that three cartons were completely damaged and the same was also recorded at they time of taking delivery. Pursuant to the policy and the assurance given therein, the first defendant was notified of the damage, requesting for survey and survey was also conducted through their surveyor on 28.1.1999 and 29.1.1999 at the plaintiff’s premises. The surveyor in his report pointed out that out of 216 panels, 114 had been broken and could not be used and the value of the said panels was estimated at Rs.12,10,385/-. The surveyor in his report pointed out that out of 216 panels, 114 had been broken and could not be used and the value of the said panels was estimated at Rs.12,10,385/-. The second defendant also issued damage certificate on 22.5.1999 reflecting the fact of three cartoons having got damaged. (d) On the basis of the damage certificate, issued, the plaintiff preferred a claim to the first defendant and it was processed, but the first defendant later repudiated the claim stating that the shipment was handed over to the cargo agent in a damaged and broken condition and in this view for the damages caused prior to the insured transit from New Delhi to Chennai they at not liable to pay any damages under the policy. The first defendant raising untenable allegations failed to honour the commitments undertook by them under the policy. The second defendant also failed to handle the consignment carefully, thereby caused loss. Thus both the defendants are liable to pay the damages suffered by the plaintiff, Hence the suit. 3. The first defendant's case in brief­: a) The suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties, True, that the plaintiff having declared that the cargo will be carried by the second defendant, the policy in question was issued based on the information and particulars furnished by the plaintiff. The pre-despatch survey was conducted by Mr. V.K. Grover, a licensed Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor on 12.1.1999 and also issued a report bearing No.163 of 1999. The consignment in question, which was surveyed on 12.1.1999, underwent further handling and appeared to have commenced its transit only on 15.1.1999, reached Chennai on the same date. The Airway Bill is always prepared by the consignor or their authorized representatives and handed over to the Air Carrier or their accredited agents. Therefore, the Airway Bill cannot, be the conclusive proof of commencement of transit. The record would disclose, though the Airway Bill was prepared on 12.1.1999, the consignment was entrusted to the second defendant only on 14.1,1999 to be transported by Flight No.BD, 2001, which arrived at Chennai at 20.31 hours as per the second defendant's certificate. Therefore, the pre-despatch survey conducted on, 12.1.1999 cannot be the proof that the cargo in question had its journey on the same date. Therefore, the pre-despatch survey conducted on, 12.1.1999 cannot be the proof that the cargo in question had its journey on the same date. b) This defendant, without prejudice to the legal rights and contention, deputed a surveyor for assessing the damage, which was done as per the Surveyor's Report dated 25.5.1999. As per the endorsement available in the Air way Bill (delivery receipt), it is clear that two pack­ets were found in damaged condition. New National Cargo Services are the domestic cargo agent of the second defendant Air Car­rier, who signed the Airway Bill as an agent of the issuing career. It is clear from the certifi­cate even at the time of taking charge of this cargo on 13.1.1999 in their capacity as agent of the second defendant, the same was in a damaged and broken condition it is also ad­mitted in the plaintiff s letter dated 28.7.1999 addressed to New National Cargo Services, New Delhi. Thus the contention of the plain­ tiff that the cargo in question was entrusted to the second defendant carrier in sound condi­tion is belied by the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff itself i.e. the letter dated 28.7.1999. (c) The cargo in question had suffered damage before the commencement of transit, contem­plated under the policy on account of a peril which was not covered under the policy and consequently the defendant has rightly dis­claimed the liability under the policy, though the consignment was inspected, damage was ascertained at the request of the plaintiff and at the instance of this dependant. There might have been possibility of the consignment hav­ing been damaged due to subsequent handling at New Delhi after the survey done by this defendant, cannot be ruled out. The policy issued is from New Delhi Airport to Chennai. Damage to the cargo having taken place prior to the transit by Air, this defendant is not liable to make good any loss, since such loss should have been taken place during the period the cargo was not under the cover of this defen­dant. Though the policy was issued on 12.1.1999, it was only to cover such risks while in transit as understood between the con­tracting parties and not while in the warehouse of the Plaintiff or their clearing and forwarding agents prior to consignment of transit. Though the policy was issued on 12.1.1999, it was only to cover such risks while in transit as understood between the con­tracting parties and not while in the warehouse of the Plaintiff or their clearing and forwarding agents prior to consignment of transit. In view of the fact the policy in question is not subject to warehouse to warehouse clause, this defen­dant is not entitled to pay any compensation, if any damage has been caused to the consign­ment prior to entrustment of the cargo to the Air Carrier. There is no proof of the packages, which were found damaged in the Airport at Chennai before clearance and the same pack­ ages were surveyed at the works of the insured by the defendant's surveyor on 28.1.1999 and 29.1.1999. This defendant is not liable for the damage if any caused, during the period be­tween 18.1.1999 and 28.1.1999, and ii view of the further fact the plaintiff has committed breach of reasonable despatch clause by failing to conduct a survey before clearance from the Airport in the presence of a Surveyor deputed by this defendant and the second defendant, For these reasons, since the policy does not cover beyond Delhi Airport to Chennai Airport, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages, since the goods were damaged even prior to entrustment to the second defendant Hence the suit may be dismissed. 4. The second defendant remained ex parte. 5. On the above pleadings the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount as such made in the plaint? 2. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? 3. Whether the signatory in the plaint has got power to institute the suit? 4. Whether this Court has Pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. Whether the goods despatched in good order and condition at Delhi? 6. Whether the plaintiff plead contrary to the contents of their letter dated 28.7.1999? 7. To what relief Plaintiff is entitled to? Issue Nos.1, 5 & 6 6. It is an admitted position that the first defendant had issued a Marine Insurance Policy before transit or after the cargo reached the bearing Policy No.041203/21/55/11/64/98 dated 12.1.1999 covering the carriage of the consignment of Solar Panels from Delhi to Chennai and the insured amount is Rs.34,06,194/-. To what relief Plaintiff is entitled to? Issue Nos.1, 5 & 6 6. It is an admitted position that the first defendant had issued a Marine Insurance Policy before transit or after the cargo reached the bearing Policy No.041203/21/55/11/64/98 dated 12.1.1999 covering the carriage of the consignment of Solar Panels from Delhi to Chennai and the insured amount is Rs.34,06,194/-. The solar panels purchased by the plaintiff from one Solarex, Virginia, USA reached Indra Gandhi International Air­ port, from there, the above goods have to be air lifted to Chennai, since the plaintiff is having its business at Chennai. In order to cover the risk, after pre survey done by the first defendant on 12.1.1999, Ex.P.4 insur­ance policy was issued by the first defendant and its cover note is Ex.P.5. The pre insurance despatch survey report is marked as Ex.P.6. The goods consigned through the second de­fendant carrier reached Chennai Airport on 18.1.1999. When the plaintiff took delivery of the consignment it is said in para-4 of the plaint that three cartons were completely damaged. Without asking for open delivery and without the survey to ascertain damage at the Chennai Airport, the plaintiff took deliv­ery of the consignment to its premises. There­after, the plaintiff notified the damages to the first defendant insurance company requesting for survey on 28.1.1999 and 29.1.1999 who had certified, that the value of the damage must be Rs.12,10,385/-. Because of the pol­icy issued by the first defendant, and because of the fact, that the second defendant Carrier also certified about the damage caused to the consignment, the plaintiff placed a claim to the first defendant which was repudiated and the result is this suit. 7. Because of the pol­icy issued by the first defendant, and because of the fact, that the second defendant Carrier also certified about the damage caused to the consignment, the plaintiff placed a claim to the first defendant which was repudiated and the result is this suit. 7. The suit is contested by the first defendant alone on the grounds that even before the entrustment of the consignment to the carrier or its agent, the cargo in question had suffered damages, which is not covered under the policy, that the policy issued is from Delhi Airport to Chennai Airport and this being the position, if any damage had been caused to the cargo before transit or after the cargo reached the Chennai Airport, under the policy, the first defendant is not liable to pay any damage and that the documents themselves would reveal, when the cargo was entrusted to the second defendant’s agent, there were damages and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the suit claim, much less any other amount. 8. In view of the claim and its repudiation to make out a case as pleaded in the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff, the Director of the plaintiff company by name Narayanan has been examined as P.W.1 seeking aid from Exs.P1 to P.44. To eclipse the above evidence, none has been examined on behalf of the first defendant, whereas aid is sought from Exs.D1 to D8, which were marked during the cross examination of P.W.1. Therefore, scanning the above materials, it is to be seen, what is the nature of the policy? whether the cargo was entrusted to the second defendant or its agent, in a damaged condition or in a good condition, if so, is the first defendant entitled to make good loss under the policy. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. R. Murari would submit that the period of policy commences from 12.1.1999 for transporting the cargo from New Delhi to Chennai and therefore, if any damage has been caused, between the said period, the insurance company is liable to pay. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. R. Murari would submit that the period of policy commences from 12.1.1999 for transporting the cargo from New Delhi to Chennai and therefore, if any damage has been caused, between the said period, the insurance company is liable to pay. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the pre despatch survey conducted on behalf of the first defendant also would reveal that there was no damage visible in nature as per the report given by the Surveyor and in this view if at all, the damage should have been caused to the cargo while transit from Delhi Airport to Chennai Airport and this being the position, it is covered under the policy and therefore, the first defendant is liable to pay the compensation. 10. Responding to the above submissions the learned counsel for the first defendant, Mr. R. Nagesvaran would submit that the policy in question is not a time bound policy, whereas it is only a "transit” policy from Delhi Airport to Chennai Airport, that if any damage has been caused to the cargo prior to the, entrustment of the cargo, to the carrier and after the cargo was entrusted by the carrier to the plaintiff, the policy would not cover the risk; that the damage said to have been caused to the consignment must be prior to the entrustment of the cargo to the second defendant or the damage should have been caused to the cargo after the same was entrusted to the plaintiff by the second defendant at Chennai Airport, since at the time of taking delivery, no survey has been done. Thus submitting and elaborating, based upon the documentary evidence, the learned counsel would contend that it is proved even by the documents produced on behalf of the plaintiff, that the damaged cargo alone had been entrusted to the second defendant and the policy being one issued, restricting the Period of transit alone, the insurance company is not at all liable to pay any dam, ages, in this case, which might have been caused prior to the entrustment or after taking delivery. 11. The first defendant insurance company issued a policy, as evidenced by Exs.P.4 and P.5 covering the risk for the transport of the consignment which is the subject matter of the suit from Delhi to Chennai on 12.1.1999. 11. The first defendant insurance company issued a policy, as evidenced by Exs.P.4 and P.5 covering the risk for the transport of the consignment which is the subject matter of the suit from Delhi to Chennai on 12.1.1999. This policy is not a time bound policy, covering dates including time, whereas it is a transit policy, as submitted by the learned counsel for the first defendant, not challenged or disputed. The policy reads: “Vessel &/or Conveyance 70329044 Rail/Rd/Air/Courier" In Ex.P.5 also it is said, "Terms and warranties on Rs.34,06,194/- on consignment said to contain Solar Panels as per invoice attached duly packed whilst in transit from New Delhi to Chennai by Rail/Road/Air.” Admittedly, the goods were transported by the second, defendant, aviation Limited. The Dir rector of the plaintiff company as P.W.1 admits, during the examination that, “Exs.P.4 & 5 policy and cover note covers from Delhi Airport to Chennai Airport. It is in correct to say that the policy covers up to the warehouse of my company.” Thus, it is made clear by the oral evidence of P.W.1 himself that the risk covered for the goods entrusted to the second defendant is restricted from India Gandhi International Airport to Chennai Airport. Therefore, if it is made out that after the entrustment of the goods or the cargo, by the plaintiff or its agent to the second defendant or its agent any damage had taken place to the cargo entrusted, then certainly the policy will cover the risk, thereby making the first defendant to compensate the damage caused during the transit. In other words, if it is proved, that before the entrustment of the cargo to the second defendant Or its agent, the cargo his been damaged, in that case, for the damage said to have been caused, prior, to the entrustment, the insurance company cannot be made liable, in view of the position admitted by P.W.1, that this is a policy taken to cover the risk from the point of entrustment to the second defendant till it reached the airport at Chennai. It is not a policy covering warehouse to warehouse, for which as submitted the Premium maybe different is not the case of P.W.1 also that the risk covered under the policy is from the warehouse of the Plaintiff at Delhi or its agent's, up to the warehouse of the plaintiff at Madras. It is not a policy covering warehouse to warehouse, for which as submitted the Premium maybe different is not the case of P.W.1 also that the risk covered under the policy is from the warehouse of the Plaintiff at Delhi or its agent's, up to the warehouse of the plaintiff at Madras. In this view after the cargo was unloaded without any damage and when the cargo was transported from the Chennai Airport to the warehouse of the plaintiff at Chennai, if any damage has taken place, it is very difficult to say that the policy will cover that risk also. In fact, no submission has been made before me, as if this policy is intended to cover the risk from warehouse to warehouse or from the date of taking policy till the goods are delivered. In view of this position, we have to see, whether the cargo in question viz, solar panels were entrusted, either to the second defendant or its agent in a sound and good condition, therefrom alone, the plaintiff or its agent cannot have control over the cargo, then automatically the risk for which the policy was taken should operate and extend. 12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff drew my attention to Ex.P.6 to prove that the goods were entrusted to the second defendant's agent in a good condition and the first defendant also certified about the conditions of the goods af­ter making preliminary survey before insur­ance, wherein it is said there is no visible damage and in this view, it should be pre­sumed that the goods were entrusted to the agent of the second defendant in a good condi­tion. In Ex.P.6, it is stated by the survey or, Who did the survey on behalf of the first de­fendant that, "It is hereby certified that the above consignment was inspected by undersigned and no visible damage was noticed at the time of loading of consignment at IGI cargo terminal. A total of 16 packages were inspected and following contents found. In Ex.P.6, it is stated by the survey or, Who did the survey on behalf of the first de­fendant that, "It is hereby certified that the above consignment was inspected by undersigned and no visible damage was noticed at the time of loading of consignment at IGI cargo terminal. A total of 16 packages were inspected and following contents found. " A reading of the above certificate would indicate, as if there was no damage to the consignment even at the time of he loading also, If his document alone is available and no other document is available wherein the plaintiff or its agent is a party indicating contra case, then nothing would prevent the Court from accepting the Case of the plaintiff, since it is also made out to certain extent that when the consignment were unloaded at Chennai Airport, some damage was noticed, 13. Though as submitted by the learned counsel for the first defendant, pre despatch survey was conducted on 12.1.1999 at 3.30 p.m., as proved the consignment was not loaded in the air craft or not entrusted to the second defendant's agent on the same day, forthwith after the survey. As seen from Ex. D5, a certificate issued by the agent of the second defendant viz., New National Cargo Services, the shipment was handed over to them only in a damaged and broken condition and the certificate reads: "This is to certify that shipment booked under AWB No.70329044 dated 12.1.1999 was handed over to Blue Dart Aviation Limited/Delhi in damage and broken condition". The seal under the certificate would indicate that the same was entrusted only on 13.1.1999 and not on 12.1.1999 immediately after, the pre despatch survey certificate issued by the surveyor nominated by the first defendant. Therefore, there is every possibility to presume and assume or to infer at least that after the survey was conducted by the person nominated by the first defendant's insurance company before the same was handed over to the second defendant, it should have sustained damages elsewhere and that is why in Ex.D.5 we find specific recital that the shipment booked was handed over in a damaged and broken condition. 14. In order to over come the certificate issued by the New National Cargo Services agent of the second defendant, on behalf of the plaintiff, the Airway Bill referred in Ex.D.5 viz., AWB No.70329044 dated 12.1.1999 was not produced. 14. In order to over come the certificate issued by the New National Cargo Services agent of the second defendant, on behalf of the plaintiff, the Airway Bill referred in Ex.D.5 viz., AWB No.70329044 dated 12.1.1999 was not produced. If that is produced by the plaintiff and as per that Airway Bill, if it is shown that the shipment or the consignment was entrusted to the second defendant on 12.1.1999 itself, with remarks of no damage, then even ignoring Ex.D5, it could be said that the goods were ignoring Ex.D5, it could be said that the goods were entrusted to the second defendant or its agent in a good condition and in this view, after the entrustment when the plaintiff has no control ever the goods consigned, damage had taken place, then the first defendant being the insurance company is liable under Exs.P4 and P.5, since the very purpose of taking the insurance is to cover the transit risk, which should include from the time of entrusting the goods to the second defendant till it is delivered to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff has failed to produce the Airway Bill, which he is entitled to have a copy, of the same, the first defendant has produced its copy, which is exhibited as Ex.D.8. 15. In Ex.D8, we find some endorsement, though it is not completely decipherable, but it indicates that two packets were in a damaged condition, which is also acknowledged by the shipper or its agent. This Airway Bill is dated 13.1.1999. Thus it is made clear, at the time of entrusting the consignment to the second defendant's agent, the consignments were not handed over in a good condition, though the pre-despatch survey report would say on 12.1.1999, no visible damage has been noticed. An attempt was made to disown this document as if the endorsement found therein may not be binding, since the Airway Bill should have been prepared by the second defendant without the knowledge of the plaintiff or its agent and this attempt is proved to be abortive by going through Rule 6 of the Carriage by Air Act as well as the communication dated 22.5.1999, wherein also we find the same signature -as that of the signature available in Ex.D8. 16. 16. As per the above said rule, the Air consignment note shall be made out by the consignor in three original parts and be handed over with the goods. The first part shall be marked for the carrier, in this case, to the second defendant and the second part shall be marked for the consignee and shall accompany the goods, the plaintiff itself and the third part shall be signed by the carrier and handed over by it, to the consignor after the goods have been accepted. Because of this reason alone, it appears the person, who has signed while taking the delivery at Chennai Airport, as seen from Ex.D1 had also signed at Delhi in Ex.D.8 and this could be seen from the similarity of the signature available in both ft documents. Thus the plaintiffs agent or who acted on, behalf of the plaintiff as consignor had admitted not only in Ex.D8, that three cartons were in a damaged and broken condition, but also admitted as per the note available in Ex.D1, wherein it is stated “vide their letter dated 13.1.1999, the booking agent New National Cargo Services, Delhi has declared that the shipment handed over to the Blue Dart was in damaged and broken condition", thereby confirming the endorsement in Ex.D8 must be correct. 17. Admittedly, when the goods were taken delivery by the plaintiff, they have not agitated either the endorsement in Ex.D8 or the aver­ments, available in the foot note of Ex.D1, which indicates even at the time of the entrust­ment of the goods, some of the cartons were damaged. Therefore, the letter addressed to Now National, Cargo Services as seen from Ex.D3, as if the Cargo was handed over in good, condition but later on in the certificate dated 13.1.1999, it is inconsistently stated that the cargo was handed over to the agent in a damaged condition, appears to be incorrect and that is why the plaintiff itself has doubted that the above said two documents do not match with each other. Neither Ex.D1 nor Ex.D8 was prepared by the first defendant and therefore it is for the plaintiff to explain, prior to the insurance as per the survey, though there was no visible damage noticed by the surveyor, how the goods were damaged, when it was entrusted to the second defendant’s agent, for which we are unable to fine any explanation or even there is no attempt to explain also. No case, the goods were in the custody of D1 company also. Thus it is made out, despite a certificate was given by the surveyor nominated by the first defendant insurance company, on 12.1.1999 as if no visible damage was noticed, when the goods were entrusted to the second defendant or its agent, the consignment was not in the same condition, whereas the goods were entrusted in damaged and broken condition. This being the position, since it is established, that before the entrustment of the goods to the second defendant or before the transit began, the goods were found damaged, that damage is not at all covered under the policy. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damage based upon the policy from the first defendant, since it is also established, that while entrusting the cargo to the second defendant, it was in damaged and broken condition and even it could be said the second defendant is also not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff, for the alleged damage caused to the consignment. 18. Admittedly, the cargo landed or unloaded at Chennai Airport on 15.1.1999 and cleared on 18.1.1999. It seems, the plaintiff or its agent has not insisted any damage certificate while taking delivery of the goods on that day. Only on 22.5.1999, after four months or so, a damage certificate was issued, as seen from Ex.D1, stating "3 cartons in damage and broken condition". If really the cargo was found to be damaged, when it was unloaded from the air craft or when it was delivered to the plaintiff, or its agent they should have insisted open delivery and they ought to have insisted for damage certificate also forthwith. This procedure is not followed and this certificate was obtained at later point of time, even after survey at Chennai, only on 22.5.1999. This procedure is not followed and this certificate was obtained at later point of time, even after survey at Chennai, only on 22.5.1999. The Carrier, probably in order to help the plaintiff, thereby to avoid its responsibility if any, should have issued the damage certificate. Though the certificate was issued, it is also not helpful to the plaintiff, because of the note available under the foot, wherein there is an indication about the damaged condition of the cargo, at the time of the entrustment, as discussed by me supra, which is also not protested, by the plaintiff as admitted by P.W.1.” 19. The very fact, that at the request of the plaintiff, the surveyor nominated by the first insurance company inspected the damaged goods on 28.1.1999 and 29.1.1999, issued certificate viz., Ex.P.9 will not prove that the damages noted therein, ought to have taken place during the transit. After taking delivery, then after 10 days, inspection was conducted and there is every possibility, to infer even that when the cargo was in the custody of the plaintiff, it might have been damaged, for which there is no coverage. In the report, the observation, that the consignment was cleared by Jayem Impex P. Ltd., and handed over to Bluedart Aviation Domestic Cargo as per the letter dated 12.1.1999 for air freighted to Chennai, will not come to the aid of the plaintiff, in view of the proved fact by the documents to which the plaintiff or its agent was a party. The surveyor, who prepared Ex.P.9 has noticed damages as on that date and since it is not proved that during the transit from Delhi to Chennai, due to improper handling by the carrier, the damage might have been occurred, it is certain that the insurer is not liable to pay the damage. The cause of damage as stated in Ex.P.9 cannot be the finding of the surveyor and the cause of damage noted in Ex.P9 must be as represented by the plaintiff. If that representation was leading to this observation, and the same is proved by the documents, then this will be an added factor, to prove the actual damage, for which we find no material at all. 20. If that representation was leading to this observation, and the same is proved by the documents, then this will be an added factor, to prove the actual damage, for which we find no material at all. 20. For the above said reasons, these issues are, answered against the plaintiff holding that The Madras Law the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the suit amount, that the goods despatched were not in a good order and condition at Delhi while entrusting the Same to the second defendant and that the plaintiff has Pleaded, contrary to the letter dated 22.5.1999. Issue Nos. 2, 3 & 4 21. On these issues, no argument was advanced and therefore, no separate findings are called for. Issue No. 7 22. In view Of my findings on the previous issues that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the goods were entrusted to the second defendant or its agent in good condition and view of the further fact that it failed to Prove that the damage was caused during the transit Period, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and in this view, the suit is dismissed, but under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, directing the parties to bear their respective costs. Suit dismissed.