New India Assurance Co v. Raman Roadways F+

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J OCTOBER 27, 2010 mb

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 2637/1998 Judgment delivered on : 27.10.2010 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Salil Paul, Advocate Versus M/S RAMAN ROADWAYS & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral) 1. This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of ` 23,57,465/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount. The plaintiff before me is: The New India Assurance Company, which is, involved in the business of general insurance throughout India. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for recovery, in its capacity as an assignee of interest, of the original owner of the goods in issue, that is the insured, in respect of its claim for damages. The damage was caused to the goods in issue which were in transit between Delhi and Jaipur. The owner of the goods ( i.e., the insured) is impleaded as defendant no.3. The transporter is defendant no.1; which is a proprietorship concern of defendant no.2. 2. The plaintiff"s case is briefly as follows. 2.1 It appears that a company by the name of M/s Machine Tools (India) Ltd in an around December, 1994 had imported a sophisticated state of the art machinery, which is broadly referred to as, 3-D Co- ordinate Measuring System (hereinafter referred to in short as the "equipment") in connection with an exhibition held in Delhi. The original manufacturer of the said equipment evidently is an entity which is situate in Derby, United Kingdom. 2.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that once the exhibition was over defendant no.3 negotiated the purchase of the equipment. Accordingly, a work order dated 25.02.1995 for purchase of the equipment was placed on the manufacturer. Defendant no.3 having purchased the equipment essentially for the purposes of manufacturing its goods (i.e., Auto head lamps) decided to transport the said equipment from Delhi to Jaipur. For this purpose, defendant no.3 did two things. Firstly, it engaged the services of the plaintiff for insuring the equipment during the course of its transit from Delhi to Jaipur, by road. Consequently, a marine insurance policy dated 15.12.1995 was drawn up in favour of defendant no.3. The equipment was insured for a sum of ` 27,76,767/-. Secondly, having secured insurance cover, defendant no.3 engaged the services of defendant nos 1 and 2 for transportation of the equipment. Resultantly, G. R. No. 35246 and consignment note of even date i.e., 16.12.1995 was issued in favour of defendant no.3. 2.3. The equipment, however, reached its destination (i.e., Jaipur) on 16-17.12.1995 in a damaged condition. This fact, according to the plaintiff is exemplified, on perusal of the endorsement on the reverse side of the G.R. and challan purportedly made by the driver of the vehicle in which equipment was transported. The endorsement of the driver seems to convey that the equipment was loaded on to the vehicle in good condition; while it was found damaged, on being unloaded at the destination. 2.4. It may only be noted that it is the plaintiff"s case that prior to the transportation of the goods and issuance of the insurance policy referred to hereinabove, the equipment in issue was subjected to a pre-shipment inspection. The pre-shipment inspection was carried out by M/s Srishti Services (Regd.), Delhi on 16.12.1995. The pre-shipment inspection revealed, according to the plaintiff, that the equipment was in good condition and properly packed. 2.5. Continuing with the narrative, on receipt of equipment by defendant no.3 in a damaged condition, intimation with regard to its condition was sent to the plaintiff. Since this necessitated a preliminary survey the plaintiff appoin