JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. Heard Sri M. Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for the appellant, on admission. Perused the record. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short ‘the First Appellate Court”) in A.S.No.94 of 2024, dated 09.06.2025 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Trial Court’) in O.S.No.457 of 2014, dated 15.02.2024, wherein, suit filed for recovery of amount of Rs. 1,84,593/- with interest @24% per annum from 23.11.2011 till the date of realization has been dismissed. 3. A perusal of the plaint shows that the suit for recovery of money was filed on account of damage of goods that occurred in the month of November, 2011. The incident occurred when the appellant herein handed over goods imported from China to the respondent for transportation in four (4) lorries on 16.11.2011 as per LRs bearing Nos.9WBHW 50050, 9WBHW 50202, 9WBHW 50204 and 9WBHW 50205 respectively. Out of said lorries, three (3) lorries have reached the destination properly but the 4 th lorry did not arrive at Hyderabad till 22.11.2011. On 23.11.2011, the 4 th lorry bearing No.MH 25B-9395 surprisingly came to Hyderabad and shockingly delivered goods with shortage. The appellant’s Manager made endorsement on the backside about the short delivery of goods and damage to goods. 4. The appellant’s Manager made endorsement on the backside mentioning about the short delivery of 17 cartons + 4 carton goods in loose condition. Further, the appellant opened the sealed carton and found many goods were broken and damaged. A complaint was made to the respondent on 10.12.2011 about the said short delivery of goods and damage to the received goods. On 19.04.2012, a written remainder was also sent but respondent did not reply and also did not pay the value of damaged and short delivered goods. On 04.05.2012, the respondent had sent a letter stating that total goods were delivered in good condition and therefore, demanded freight charges. Further, on 07.05.2012, the respondent stated that the concerned lorry which delivered damaged goods has met with an accident for which the owner of the lorry lodged complaint and that the respondent is not bound to pay the value of short delivered goods and damaged goods. Further, on 07.05.2012, the respondent stated that the concerned lorry which delivered damaged goods has met with an accident for which the owner of the lorry lodged complaint and that the respondent is not bound to pay the value of short delivered goods and damaged goods. In that context, reference is made to the lorry receipt which is titled “CARRIER’S RISK/OWNERS RISK”. According to the appellant, when “owner’s risk” is not struck off, the goods are transported at “carrier’s risk”. Further, the lorry receipt shall be deemed to have been issued at CARRIER’S RISK ONLY and therefore, suit for recovery of money is filed. The suit was adjudicated on merits and the judgment dated 15.02.2024 was passed against the appellant. It is held by the Trial Court that there was no opposition to the allegation made by the appellant about the shortage of 17 cartons and damage to the goods. Therefore, it is concluded that there is shortage of goods and damage to some of the goods. Further, the Trial Court proceeded to consider whether the respondent had liable to pay the cost of shortage of goods or damaged goods. In that context, Exs.A4 to A7 consignment receipts vide L.R.Nos.50050, 50202, 50204, 50205 and Clause No.1 of all the receipts were perused, wherein, it is clearly stipulated as follows: “If the transport operator does not delete one of the two inscriptions on the face of the lorry receipt namely carrier’s risk/owner’s risk, the lorry receipt shall be deemed to have been issued at carrier’s risk only.” 5. On the basis of above extract, since the word ‘owner’s risk’ was not struck off, the Trial Court held that the carrier alone has to bear the burden. Since there was no striking of any of the words, it is concluded that no evidence is adduced by the appellant to show that the goods were transported at owner’s risk and that more particularly, in Exs.A4 to A7, there is specific mention that in case of non-selection, it is deemed that the goods were transported at carrier’s risk. In view of the same, the suit has been dismissed and on a similar ground, the Appeal Suit has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court. In view of the same, the suit has been dismissed and on a similar ground, the Appeal Suit has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is preferred by raising the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the Courts below erred in law in holding that the carrier assumed liability merely because the words "owner's risk/carrier's risk" were not struck off in the invoice, without any proved contract, agreement, or acceptance as required under Sections 10, 13 and 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872? b) Whether the findings of the Courts below fastening liability on the carrier, in absence of any written or oral contract specifically fixing the risk on the carrier, are contrary to Sections 73-75 of the Contract Act, which mandate proof of breach and proof of contractual obligation before imposing liability? c) Whether the Courts below misdirected themselves in law by shifting the burden of proof upon the carrier when under Sections 101-103 of the Evidence Act, it was for the plaintiff/consignor to prove an express contract imposing carrier's risk? d) Whether the Courts below erred in drawing an adverse inference against the carrier merely based on non-striking of pre-printed words on an invoice, which is not a document executed by the carrier and does not constitute a binding contract? e) Whether the Courts below committed an error of law by importing a 'deemed carrier's risk' doctrine in the absence of any statutory provision under the Contract Act, Carriers Act, or any binding legal principle permitting such presumption? f) Whether the Courts below erred in holding that non-striking of portions in a pre-printed invoice constitutes a concluded contract imposing liability, when settled law prohibits creating contractual obligations by implication or presumption? g) Whether the Courts below misapplied Sections 6 and 9 of the Carriers Act by presuming carrier's risk without the plaintiff establishing negligence, misconduct, deficiency of service, or breach as required under law? h) Whether the Courts below erred in holding the carrier liable without establishing entrustment, condition of goods at delivery, and the exact manner of loss, thereby contravening mandatory requirements under the Carriers Act? h) Whether the Courts below erred in holding the carrier liable without establishing entrustment, condition of goods at delivery, and the exact manner of loss, thereby contravening mandatory requirements under the Carriers Act? i) Whether the findings of both Courts are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, inasmuch as the liability was fastened solely on the basis of an ambiguous remark in the invoice that was neither prepared by the carrier nor supported by any contractual terms? j) Whether the Courts below failed to consider that the invoice is a unilateral document of the consignor and cannot bind the carrier unless expressly accepted as per law? k) Whether the Courts below erred in law in treating silence or non- striking of words in a third-party document as acceptance under Section 7 of the Contract Act, when acceptance must be absolute, unqualified, and communicated? l) Whether the Courts below ignored the settled principle that no contractual liability can arise without consensus ad idem, and thereby arrived at findings opposed to fundamental principles of contract law? m) Whether the Courts below misapplied legal presumptions under the Evidence Act in assuming assent to risk conditions, thereby creating liability contrary to the statutory scheme under the Contract Act and Carriers Act? 6. A Second Appeal can be entertained only when there are substantial questions of law raised before this Court as contemplated under Section 100 of CPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Hemavathi v. V. Hombegowda , (2025) 5 SCC 442 held that High Court can entertain a regular Second Appeal purely on a ‘substantial’ question of law not even a question of law or a question of fact. Further, as per the judgment of this Court in Syed Abdul Quddus v. K. Vijaya Laxmi , 2024 SCC OnLine TS 186 , the Apex Court in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki , (2007) 1 SCC 546 held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 100 CPC is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and fell for consideration. The evidence can be appreciated in a Second Appeal when there are perverse findings on account of non-consideration of relevant evidence or findings given on the basis of irrelevant factors. The evidence can be appreciated in a Second Appeal when there are perverse findings on account of non-consideration of relevant evidence or findings given on the basis of irrelevant factors. When the current case is considered, the dispute involves an accident to a lorry bearing No.MH 25 B 9395. On account of the accident, there was loss of goods termed as shortage of goods. Further, in some cartons, though the cartons were sealed from outside, goods inside were damaged. 7. There is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident or shortage and damage to the goods transported in lorry bearing No.MH 25 B 9395 vide L.R No.9WBHW 50205 issued by respondent. The only factual question that is involved is who is liable to bear the cost of such loss which occurred due to the accident. The factual issue to be decided was whether the goods were transported at owner’s risk or carrier’s risk. In that regard, heavy reliance is placed on Exs.A4 to A7 i.e. original L.Rs bearing Nos.50050, 50202, 50204, 50205, al dated 16.11.2011 issued by respondent. Said lorry receipts contain Terms and Conditions of Carriage Carrier’s Risk or Owenr’s Risk, wherein, at Serial No.1, it is mentioned that in case transport operator does not delete one of the two inscriptions on the face of the lorry receipt, namely CARRIER’S RISK/OWNER’S RISK, the lorry receipt shall be deemed to have been issued at CARRIER’S RISK only. 8. Thus, factual finding given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court is based on documentary evidence. There is a concurrent finding by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court about the transportation of goods at carrier’s risk since carrier’s risk was not deleted by the transporter. Such being the case, in view of the concurrent factual findings given, this Court cannot re-assess or re-examine the same point in the Second Appeal. 9. Coming to the aspect of the questions raised in the guise of substantial questions of law, they are all related to the factual finding about at whose liability the goods were transported with clever drafting involving sections of Contract Act, Evidence Act and Carriers Act. No amount of clever drafting can camouflage findings invited about the findings of fact given by the First Appellate Court and the Trial court. No amount of clever drafting can camouflage findings invited about the findings of fact given by the First Appellate Court and the Trial court. This court, therefore, sees no merit in the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant for the purpose of entertaining the Second Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.