P. RAMA RAO versus P. NIRMALA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 05-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.RAMARAO 
v. 
P. NIRMALA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 5, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Carriers Act, 1865 : 
Section 1(}-Suit against carriei-Notice f01~Limitation perio(}-
C Petitioner a co'1tractor with Indian Oil Co1poration canying on transp01tation 
of petroleum products-Respondent-owner of a truck engaged for oil 
deliverr-Accident of truck-Leakage of oil-Suit filed by petitioner for 
recoveiy of amount of short delivery along with interest-Suit decreed by Trial 
Court and confinned by First Appellate Court-On appeal High Court set 
D aside the decree against Insurance Company on the ground that notice under 
Section 10 was not issue(}-Appeal-ffeld, the owner of the truck had an 
insurance policy with the respondent-Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. 
Ltd.-Ultimately, the liability was sought to be fastened on the insurance 
company as insurer, for the liability of common carrie1~As a result, notice 
E 
F 
has to be issued, when the damage was caused to the goods which were being 
canied due to an accident covered under the policy of insurance-So~ a notice 
under Section 10 was required to be issued to the Insurance G'on111any within 
six months from the date of the knowledge of the injury to or loss of the goods 
entrusted for carriage before filing the suit-Admittedly, such a notice was 
issued after the expiry of six months from the date of the accident-Therefore 
the suit against the Insurance Company would not lie, though a suit may lie 
against the common canie1-Notice issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to 
the petitioner as well as common carrier and the Insurance Company would 
not be construed to be a notice under Section JO. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 25126 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.95 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in L.P.A. 239 of 1993. 
H 
A.T.M. Sampath for the Pet;tioner. 
576 
P.R. RAOv. F. NIRMAlA 
577 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This special leave petition is from the judgment of the Division Bench 
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated December 6, 1995 made in LPA 
No. 239 of 1993. 
A 
The admitted position is that the petitioner is a registered contractor B 
with the Indian Oil Corporation for transportation of the petroleum 
products within Andhra Pradesh from Vishakhapatnam to Hyderabad. It 
would appear that he engaged one P. Nirmala, the owner bearing truck 
No. OHL 2182 and entrusted 12000 Lts. of oil for delivery at Hyderabad 
on July 9, 1982. It is now not in dispute that on account of the accident of C 
the truck there was a leakage of oil. As a consequence, only 1755 Lts. were 
delivered resulting in shortage of the rest, namely 10245 Lts. The suit was 
filed by the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 66,212.36 with interest 
against P. Nirmala, the truck owner and the insurer, Oriental Fire and 
General Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 4 in the special leave 
petition. The Trial Court decreed the suit and on appeal the learned single D 
judge confirmed the same. The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set 
aside the decree as against respondent No. 4 on the ground that notice 
under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 (for short, the 'Act') was not 
issued and, therefore, the suit against the insurer would not lie. Thus, this 
special leave petition. 
E 
Shri A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends 
that since the petitioner is not the carrier, the need to issue notice does 
not arise. However, even if it is to be so, such a notice has been issued 
within six months by the Indian Oil Corporation, marking a copy to the 
Insurance Company. So, the suit is within limitation. We find no force in F 
the contention. Section 10 of the Act reads as under : 
''No suit shall be instituted against a common carrier for the loss 
of, or injury to, goods entrusted to him for carriage unless notice 
in writing of the loss or injury has been given to him before the G 
institution of the suit and within six months of the time when the 
loss or injury first came to the knowledge of the plaintiff." 
Admittedly, notice was issued by the petitioner on July 5, 1983 after 
the expiry or six months' time. A reading of Section 10, it would make it 
clear that no suit shall be instituted against common carrier for the loss of H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A or injury to goods entrusted to him for carriage, unless notice in writing of 
the loss
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.