RSA-2451-1997 IN TH 207
New India Assur Truck Operators CORAM : HON Present: Mr. for t
Non *** AMARINDER S 1. The judgment and d dismissing its s 08.04.1997 passe preferred by it ag trial Court, has al 2. For of their status bef 3. Succ Trading Compan Truck Operators in truck bearin consignment was under a marine 1997 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RSA Dat Assurance Company Ltd. Versus
rators Union, Jaitu through its Presiden HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the appellant.
None for the respondent. ***
DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is the appellant befo and decree dated 23.10.1993 passe its suit for recovery of Rs.1,02,2 passed by the learned 1st Appellate y it against the aforesaid judgment an , has also been dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the par tus before the trial court Succinctly, the facts of the case are ompany entrusted 65 bales of F-414 rators Union for transportation to Ahm bearing No. DIL-5499 under goo nt was insured by M/s Raman Tradi arine insurance policy vide cover UNJAB AND HARYANA
IGARH
RSA No.2451 of 1997(O&M) Date of Decision:14.01.2026
... Appellant
resident ...Respondent MARINDER SINGH GREWAL
RAL) t before this Court, challenging the passed by the learned trial Court .1,02,258/- and the judgment dated pellate Court vide which the appeal ent and decree passed by the learned the parties shall be referred to in terms se are that on 03.02.1989, M/s Raman 414 S/G cotton to the defendant o Ahmedabad. The goods were loaded r goods receipt No. 002308. The Trading Company with the plaintiff cover note No. 275915, Policy No. ndent
ng the Court dated appeal earned terms aman ndant– loaded . The laintiff y No. PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2451-1997 2135060100083 03.02.1989. The Jaitu, the bales o plaintiff, the dam alleged that the t of cotton dated 0 paid by the plaint The plaintiff also on account of ot caught fire due to and that the defe the goods. On ac to pay the afores and Rs. 4,758/- averred that M/s rights and remed therefore, the pl defendant. 4. Upo counsel and con denied that the p instituted throug negligence on its caught fire due t to pay the amoun 1997 (O&M) -2- 0083 dated 14.12.1988 and declarat . The value of the goods was Rs. 1,99 ales of cotton caught fire and were ba e damage caused was to the extent of t the transporter issued a certificate re ated 05.02.1989. It is further stated plaintiff to M/s Raman Trading Comp iff also claimed to have paid a sum of t of other charges. It was then alleged due to the negligence and carelessnes e defendant, being the carrier, was res On account of such negligence, the d aforesaid sum of Rs. 97,500/- paid to - paid towards surveyor’s fee and at M/s Raman Trading Company had remedies in respect of the subject ma the plaintiff claimed a right to reco Upon issuance of summons, the d contested the suit by filing a wr t the plaintiff is a duly incorporated co through a duly authorised person. Th on its part and specifically controvert due to carelessness of the truck drive amount claimed. It was averred that th eclaration No. 0035060028488 dated s. 1,99,947.44. While the truck was at ere badly damaged. According to the nt of goods worth Rs. 1,25,000/-. It is cate regarding the damage to the bales tated that a sum of Rs. 97,500/- was Company under the insurance policy. um of Rs. 4,758/- to the surveyor and alleged by the plaintiff that the goods lessness on the part of the truck driver as responsible for the safe carriage of , the defendant was stated to be liable paid to M/s Raman Trading Company ee and other expenses. It was further ny had subrogated and transferred its ect matter insured to the plaintiff, and o recover the said amount from the s, the defendant appeared through a written statement. The defendant ated company or that the suit has been on. The defendant further denied any troverted the allegation that the goods k driver or that the defendant is liable that the fire occurred due to vis major dated was at to the . It is e bales was policy. or and goods driver age of liable mpany further red its ff, and m the rough endant s been d any goods liable ajor, PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2451-1997 caused by electr through a gate. extinguish the fir not be controlled the bales to the g the driver drove abundance and, defendant also de the plaintiff by M privity of contra the plaintiff from raised that, as pe defendant is not electricity, and co 5. On t three issues incl evidence produc appellant-plaintif learned 1st Appe 6. Lear recorded by the l Appellate Court, entitled to a decr It is submitted t Carriers Act 186 1997 (O&M) -3- electric wires coming into contact gate. It was further pleaded that the the fire by pouring water on the cotto trolled he risked his life by opening th the ground, as a result of which only drove the truck to a nearby Gaushal and, with the help thereof, successf also denied the alleged subrogation an ff by M/s Raman Trading Company contract between the plaintiff and the f from maintaining the present suit. A , as per a clause printed on the revers is not liable for any loss caused to and consequently, the suit is not main On the basis of pleadings, learned tr s including relief. On appreciation o roduced before it, the learned trial C laintiff and the appeal preferred by Appellate Court. Hence, the regular se Learned counsel for the appellan y the learned trial Court on Issue No. Court, are illegal and unsustainable, an a decree for recovery of ₹1,02,258/- itted that the courts below failed to ct 1865, which impose absolute liab ontact with the truck while passing at the driver made sincere efforts to cotton bales and, when the fire could ning the dala of the truck and pushing h only 8–9 bales fell down. Thereafter, shala where water was available in ccessfully extinguished the fire. The tion and transfer of rights in favour of pany and asserted that there was no nd the defendant, thereby disentitling suit. A preliminary objection was also everse of the consignment note, the ed to the cotton bales on account of t maintainable. rned trial Court had framed as many as tion of oral as well as documentary trial Court dismissed the suit of the ed by it was also dismissed by the ular second appeal. ppellant contends that the findings e No. 1, as affirmed by the learned 1 ble, and that the appellant–plaintiff is as damages from the respondent. led to apply Sections 8 and 9 of the te liability upon the carrier for loss assing orts to could ushing eafter, ble in e. The our of as no titling as also te, the unt of any as entary of the by the ndings ned 1st ntiff is ndent. of the r loss PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2451-1997 during transit, an that M/s Raman Company could execution of the upon settlement and was fully c contends that th subrogation, igno of the case, and c which are liable t 7. Ther 8. Hav through the pape trial Court as we conclusions on evidence on reco (i) w the exec (ii) part 8.1 On finding that ther Company and th M/s Raman Tra 1997 (O&M) -4- sit, and wrongly held the suit to be aman Trading Company was not im could not sue on the basis of subroga of the letter of subrogation and power ment of the claim, the appellant stepp ully competent to institute the suit that the learned Courts below mis n, ignored the pleadings of the parties , and consequently recorded erroneous liable to be reversed. There is no representation for the res Having heard learned Counsel for e paper-book, with his able assistance, as well as the learned 1st Appellate s on two determinative questions a n record, namely: (i) whether the plaintiff–Insurance C the suit in its own name on the ba executed by M/s Raman Trading Co (ii) whether there was any evidence part of the driver of the respondent On the first question, the learned tr at there was no privity of contract b and the defendant–carrier and that the n Trading Company in favour of to be not maintainable on the ground not impleaded and that the Insurance brogation. Further, he argues that the power of attorney was undisputed and, t stepped into the shoes of the insured e suit for recovery. Furthermore, he mis-appreciated the principles of arties, misapplied the law to the facts oneous findings on Issues No. 1 and 2, respondent. el for the appellant and after going tance, this Court finds that the learned ellate Court have rightly rested their ions arising from the pleadings and rance Company was competent to file the basis of the letter of subrogation Company; and idence to establish negligence on the dent–carrier. rned trial Court recorded a categorical tract between the plaintiff–Insurance hat the subrogation allegedly made by ur of the plaintiff was of no legal round urance hat the d and, nsured re, he les of e facts and 2, going earned d their s and to file gation on the gorical urance ade by legal PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2451-1997 consequence for defendant-carrier Oriental Fire an Lines Ltd., 1968 suit filed by an i is not maintaina Court further reli of India v. Sri S subrogation does an action in its o insured. The lea affirmed the said not assignment a not maintainable said reasoning ba 8.2 On t held that neglige Appellate Court plaintiff itself re observed that th negligence on the by him to contro up was of accide to demonstrate an 1997 (O&M) -5- ce for maintaining the suit for recove carrier. While deciding the said iss re and General Insurance Compan 1968 ACJ 296, wherein the Hon’ble y an insurance company against a car ntainable unless filed in the name of er relied upon the judgment of the Ho Sri Sarada Mills Ltd. 1972 (2) SCC n does not confer any independent rig in its own name and that the right of he learned 1st Appellate Court exam e said view, holding that the present c ment and, therefore, the suit filed by t inable. The appellant has not been ab ing based on the record. On the second question, both the lea egligence on the part of the driver w Court noticed that the surveyor’s re self recorded that the cause of fire that the documents placed by the on the part of the driver and, rather, i control the fire. Thus, as per the plaint accidental fire and not of negligence. trate any material for contradicting this recovery of Rs.1,02,258/- against the aid issue, reliance was placed upon mpany Ltd. v. American President on’ble Bombay High Court held that a t a carrier on the basis of subrogation ame of the insured. The learned trial the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union SCC 877, wherein it was held that ent right upon the insurer to maintain ght of action continues to vest in the t examined this aspect in detail and esent case was one of subrogation and d by the insurer in its own name was een able to point out any error in the learned Courts below concurrently river was not proved. The learned 1 or’s report (Ex P1) produced by the f fire was accidental. It was further the plaintiff did not suggest any ather, indicated that efforts were made plaintiff’s own evidence, the case set ence. The appellant has not been able ng this finding. nst the upon ident that a gation d trial nion ld that aintain in the il and on and e was in the rrently ned 1st by the further st any made ase set n able PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2451-1997 8.3 Sub below, only enab give any enfore borrowing the ins have, therefore, r its own name on claim, namely ne 9. In v Pankajakshi (De and others (2016 (2019) 17 SCC 7 Singh (dead) thr law are not req Haryana High C Section 41 of the 10. In find any merit i plaintiff. Conseq below is upheld a 11. Misc January 14, 202 Pankaj* 1997 (O&M) -6- Subrogation, as noticed in the judgm y enables the insurer to enforce the rig enforecable right to the insurer exc the insured’s sword, not owning the sw fore, rightly concluded that the plainti me on the basis of subrogation and fu ely negligence of the driver, was not p In view of the judgments passed by i (Dead) through Legal Representa 2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur V CC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead hrough LRs and others (2023) SC ot required to be framed in second igh Court whose jurisdiction is ci of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. view of the aforesaid facts and cir erit in the arguments raised by lear onsequently, the concurrent finding pheld and the instant regular second ap Miscellaneous application(s), if any, (AMARIN 4, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable e judgments relied upon by the Courts the rights of the insured and does not er exclusively. In other words, it is the sword. The learned Courts below plaintiff could not maintain the suit in and further that the foundation of the s not proved. sed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in entatives and others Vs. Chandrika ur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan 3) SCC Online SC 875, questions of econd appeal before the Punjab and is circumscribed by provisions of and circumstances, this Court does not y learned counsel for the appellant inding rendered by both the Courts ond appeal is dismissed. if any, also stand disposed of. ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE ned : Yes/No : Yes/No Courts es not , it is below suit in of the ourt in rika thers aran ons of b and ns of es not ellant- Courts PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh