JUDGMENT : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. This Appeal assails Judgement and Decree dated 02.02.1999 in O.S.No.313 of 1991 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad. 2. For brevity, parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. The averments in the plaint are : the 1 st plaintiff is the insurance company, during the course of its business, it issued a marine policy covering the risk of the consignment booked under GR.No.66653 dated 18.10.1988; the said consignment was entrusted by M/s Laxmi Machine Works, Coimbatore for its safe carriage to Abohar, Punjab to the 2nd plaintiff Company; defendant accepted the consignment for safe delivery; goods consist of seven cases of ring frames, sections and spares, the said consignment was delivered in a damaged condition, therefore, the 2 nd plaintiff preferred a claim on the defendant and carrier by its letter dated 08.12.1988, for the value of the damaged goods; defendant issued a damage certificate to the 2 nd plaintiff on 14.12.1988, in spite of the notice, he failed to make payment to the 2 nd plaintiff; as the goods were insured, the 2 nd plaintiff preferred a claim with the 1st plaintiff; the 1st plaintiff assessed the damage with the help of an independent surveyor and paid Rs.1,95,760/- to the 2nd plaintiff who, having received it, authorised the 1 st plaintiff to recover the said amount from the defendant. 4. On the other hand, defendant filed written statement contending that payment made by the 1 st plaintiff to the 2nd plaintiff is voluntary; consignor has no subsisting interest in the consignment as the consignee has taken delivery of the goods, the consignee, having received the damage from the insurance company, is estopped from making any further claim from defendant, there is no legal evidence about the damage caused to the goods; there is no material before the court to assess the damage independently; the surveyor report has no evidentiary value in the eye of law; suit claim is barred by limitation and for want of a statutory notice under Section 10 of the CARRIERS ACT ; therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings referred to above, framed the issues which are as under: i. Whether the 2nd plaintiff is estopped from raising any claim. ii. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings referred to above, framed the issues which are as under: i. Whether the 2nd plaintiff is estopped from raising any claim. ii. Whether there is any damage to the consignment due to the negligence on the part of the defendant. iii. Whether the 1 st plaintiff subrogated to the rights and remedies of the 2nd plaintiff against the defendant. iv. Whether the suit is barred by limitation and for want of notice under section 10 of the CARRIERS ACT . v. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit claim. vi. To what relief? 6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings as well as the material evidence available on record, held the issues in favour of plaintiffs and decreed the suit for Rs.1,95,760/- with costs; interest is granted at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Aggrieved thereby, this Appeal by the Appellant/Defendant. 7. Heard Sri Srinivas Chitturu, learned counsel for the Appellant/defendant and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the record. 8. It is to be noted that on the issue of negligence, defendant is, admittedly, a carrier governed by the CARRIERS ACT , 1865 (for short the Act) , as on the date of cause of action ie. 18.10.1988, on which date the goods were entrusted to defendant and the subsequent date on which the damaged goods were received, the matter stands governed by the Act. The Carriage by Road Act, 2007, which was brought into force on 29.09.2007 by which CARRIERS ACT , 1865 was repealed, has therefore, no application. 9. It is relevant to note that according to Section 9 of the CARRIERS ACT , in any suit brought for damages or non-delivery of goods, entrusted to a carrier for transportation, it is not necessary for plaintiff to prove that such loss or damage was owing to the negligence of the carrier or its servants. Defendant is bound by this provision and therefore, it has to be presumed that loss or damage pleaded by plaintiffs had occurred only due to the negligence of defendant or its servants. Defendant did not lead any evidence to show that it cannot be made liable on the ground that it is not negligent or any other ground contemplated under the CARRIERS ACT . 10. Defendant did not lead any evidence to show that it cannot be made liable on the ground that it is not negligent or any other ground contemplated under the CARRIERS ACT . 10. The main contention of defendant, as argued by their counsel is that even though it cannot escape from the liability for the goods damaged, that, by itself, is not sufficient to fasten it with a liability of Rs.1,95,760/- treating it as the value of the damaged goods as plaintiffs cannot, on the evidence let in by them, be said to have proved the same i.e. the value of goods is Rs.1,95,760/-. Elaborating on this contention, learned counsel for defendant pointed out that plaintiffs, except examining P.W.1 (the Law Officer) and filing the surveyor report (Ex.A5), which was given by the surveyor appointed by the 1st plaintiff who surveyed the damage unilaterally without inviting defendant to send its representative to attend the said survey and consider its objections, cannot be accepted as proof of value of the damaged goods. 11. It is further argued that the 1st plaintiff did not care to examine the surveyor as a witness and he did not even examine anybody from the 2 nd plaintiff to prove the value of the damaged goods and also payment made to it, therefore, the claim for Rs.1,95,760/- should be rejected as not proved. Since there is no other convincing evidence to show as to what could be the value of the damaged goods, the suit claim is liable to be rejected in toto on that ground alone. 12. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for defendant placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Associated Transport Corporation Pvt. Ltd. V. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported 1989–TLKER– 0 –496. In this connection, he pointed out that the trial Court placed much reliance on Ex.A7 certificate issued by the defendant treating it as an admission of defendant liability for the suit claim which is not correct and that the said certificate even by its recital would read that defendant gave it only on the basis of the information given by the 1 st plaintiff insurer only for the purpose of giving the said certificate and it cannot be treated as an admission of liability regarding the value of the goods damaged. He also pointed out that reliance placed on Exs. A1, A4, A7, A8, A9 and A11 and the decision of Madras High Court in Tirupati Venkatachalapathy Lorry Services v. The New India Insurance Company Limited , (1988) 1 MLJ 64 / II (1988) ACC-102 by the trial Court cannot also be said to be correct. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiffs argued that Ex.A5 survey report was given by licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor, therefore, it cannot be brushed aside. He further argued that Ex.A7 certificate, admittedly, given by defendant should be treated as an acknowledgement of its liability, including the value shown as the value of the damaged goods and the fact that the 1 st plaintiff paid the said amount to the 2 nd plaintiff under Ex.A11 are all circumstances which prove the case of plaintiffs with certainty and therefore, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and the same does not call for interference. 14. Now the point for consideration is whether the trial Court was right in quantifying the loss at Rs.1,95,760/- on the strength of Ex.A7 certificate and Ex.A5 surveyor report and upholding the suit claim. 15. The judgment in Associated Transport Corporation case (referred supra) has been more or less given on similar facts. That was also a case where the trial Court decreed the suit of the insurance company which it brought as a (1988) 1 MLJ 64 / II (1988) ACC-102 Subrogee and the judgement reads that apart from a certificate issued by the carrier, the trial Court relied upon merely a certificate issued by the surveyor appointed by the insurance company and the proof of payment made by the insurance company to the owner of the goods. Rejecting the contention of the insurance company, in that case that the certificate issued by the surveyor and the fact that it paid the amount to the owner of the goods was sufficient proof of the value of the damaged goods, the Court observed as under: “…… No notice is issued to the defendant before the survey is made. The surveyor who prepared exhibit.A7 has not been examined to prove the contents of exhibit A7. Moreover, there is not even formal evidence adduced by the 2 nd plaintiff as to the quantum of damages who alone is competent to prove the same. The surveyor who prepared exhibit.A7 has not been examined to prove the contents of exhibit A7. Moreover, there is not even formal evidence adduced by the 2 nd plaintiff as to the quantum of damages who alone is competent to prove the same. The only witness examined on the side of the plaintiffs is PW.1 who is an officer of the 1 st plaintiff insurance company. He cannot have any direct knowledge regarding these matters and his evidence is not sufficient to prove the quantum of damages. The mere fact that the 1 st plaintiff paid the amount to the 2 nd plaintiff will not be sufficient evidence, nor will it bind the defendant who is ultimately liable for damages. In these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that there is absolutely no evidence to prove the quantum of damages and the decree granted by the lower court, fixing the damages at ?9, 202/- is without any evidence and is liable to be set aside……….” 16. With the above reasoning, the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala allowed the Appeal of the transport company. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasoning in the above decision regarding the requirement of proof of the value of damaged goods is correct. The facts in the present case so far as Ex.A5 survey report is concerned, are similar. It appears, the 1 st plaintiff insurance company thought that it did not examine the surveyor to prove the survey report and the loss arrived at by him and further, the survey report also shows that it was done unilaterally without participation of the representatives of the defendant company to participate in the survey and give it an opportunity to consider its point of view or objections on the aspect. The 1 st plaintiff merely examined PW1, who has no knowledge about the value of the damage to the goods. It also did not examine any competent from the 2 nd plaintiff who could speak about the same, but merely relied upon Ex.A11 receipt given by the 2nd plaintiff for payment received by it. The transaction covered by Ex.A11 is a matter between plaintiffs 1 and 2 and unless there is direct evidence to show that the value of the damaged goods works out to the amount claimed by plaintiffs that cannot be sufficient basis to fasten the defendant with that liability. The transaction covered by Ex.A11 is a matter between plaintiffs 1 and 2 and unless there is direct evidence to show that the value of the damaged goods works out to the amount claimed by plaintiffs that cannot be sufficient basis to fasten the defendant with that liability. 17. Hence, what is to be looked into is whether Ex.A7 certificate which was admittedly given by the defendant can be treated as admission or acknowledgement that it accepted the value of the damaged goods at Rs.1,95,760/- mentioned in Ex.A7 certificate. Upon perusing the said certificate, it cannot, in the opinion of this Court, be treated as an admission or acknowledgement by defendant that value of the goods damaged is Rs.1,95,760/-. In fact, the above endorsement can be treated as defendant admitted that its vehicle in which the goods were carried met with an accident within the limits of the Police Station mentioned and the same goods were damaged and nothing more. It should also be noted that defendant had mentioned specifically in the above endorsement that survey was conducted by the New India Assurance Company Limited without its participation and that survey has estimated the loss mentioned in the endorsement, therefore, it was mentioning it. It appears, the 1st plaintiff got the above endorsement from defendant to settle the claim of the 2nd plaintiff, but as contended by the defendant counsel, it cannot be treated as admission of the defendant liability for the amount mentioned in Ex.A7 holding that it also agreed that value of the loss as estimated by the surveyor or claimed by the 1 st plaintiff. 18. It is pertinent to mention here that an admission to fall under Section 17 of the EVIDENCE ACT and become relevant and to operate against the person making it, the same should be clear and unequivocal in order to find the person making it. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for defendant pointed out the above aspect and argued that endorsement in Ex.A7 certificate cannot be treated as an acknowledgement or admission on defendant’s part that it had admitted the value of the goods damaged is Rs.1,95,760/-. At best, it can be treated that an endorsement in Ex.A7 would mean to show only that defendant merely acknowledged the truck accident and damage to the goods, but not the value of the damaged goods. At best, it can be treated that an endorsement in Ex.A7 would mean to show only that defendant merely acknowledged the truck accident and damage to the goods, but not the value of the damaged goods. Therefore, Ex.A7 cannot be treated as an admission or an acknowledgement on the part of defendant that it had also agreed with the estimate of loss or the value of the goods damage as given by the surveyor which was relied upon by the 1 st plaintiff. 19. One other important aspect is that the 1st plaintiff failed to examine the surveyor nor did it examine anybody from the 2 nd plaintiff to prove that the value of the goods damaged was Rs.1,95,760/-. Ex.A5 survey report shows that defendant was not invited to be present at the time of survey. The survey report also shows that it was not conducted at the premises of defendant, but it was conducted at the place of the 2nd plaintiff where the goods were delivered. Further, it is not the case of the 1 st plaintiff or its officials that notices were sent to the defendant informing about the date of conducting the survey and defendant received it but failed to appear, and this supports defendant’s version that they did not participate in the survey. Even assuming for a moment that the 1st plaintiff is entitled to have a unilateral survey conducted without the participation of the defendant, still, it ought to have examined the surveyor and also the 2 nd plaintiff to prove the value of the damaged goods and should have made available the surveyor for cross-examination by the defendant. 20. Now coming to the judgment of Madras High Court in Tirupati Venkatachalapathy Lorry service’s case , which was relied upon by the trial Court, a learned single judge of the Madras High Court held that though the insurance company did not examine the surveyor or the 2 nd plaintiff therein ie. consignee of the goods, the 1st plaintiff, which was also the New Indian Assurance Company Limited being a statutory body cannot be expected to have any need to create a false receipt, showing that it paid the amount to the consignee (insured) of the goods, and therefore on that premise, it proceeded to uphold the decree. consignee of the goods, the 1st plaintiff, which was also the New Indian Assurance Company Limited being a statutory body cannot be expected to have any need to create a false receipt, showing that it paid the amount to the consignee (insured) of the goods, and therefore on that premise, it proceeded to uphold the decree. What is important is that the law regarding proof of damages remains the same, whether the plaintiff is a statutory body or a government company or a non-government company or a Private individual, this Court cannot distinguish between them on presumptions and assumptions having regard to the status and character of plaintiff. The above decision of the learned single judge of the Madras High Court cannot be said to stand to reason and does not command acceptance. Further, the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Associated Transport Corporation case which is extracted supra, regarding the effect of non-examination of surveyor and the consignee of the goods for proving damage to the goods and their value stands to reason and is in accordance with law, hence, the same is followed. Here, it should be mentioned that Exs. A1, A4, A7, A8, A9 and A11 merely speak about occurrence of accident and damage to some goods of the 2 nd plaintiff, but they do not speak of the value of the same and no one has been examined in order to ascertain the value of the goods. Hence, the trial Court cannot also be said to be correct in placing reliance upon the same in granting the decree. 21. It is settled principle of law that in a claim for damages based either on breach of contract as in the present case, which is to transport the goods without causing any damage to them or in a tort, plaintiff should not only prove the breach of the contract or the tort, but it should also prove the actual damage caused and the quantum of damages which it claims. The said view of this Court is also fortified by the judgment in Transport Corporation of India Ltd v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd [C.C.C.A.No.18 of 1996, vide its order dated 17.2.2012]. The said view of this Court is also fortified by the judgment in Transport Corporation of India Ltd v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd [C.C.C.A.No.18 of 1996, vide its order dated 17.2.2012]. Therefore, the 1st plaintiff can be said to have failed in this case in proving the second requirement i.e. proving the actual damage caused and the quantum of damage which it claimed. The evidence let in by the plaintiffs does not also show that its claim for damages, even for any lesser amount can be upheld. Therefore, it follows that plaintiffs claim for the value of the damaged goods must be rejected as not proved by the plaintiffs. 22. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed. The judgement and decree of the trial Court is set aside and the suit is dismissed. No costs. 23. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications shall stand closed.