CWP No. 672 of 2011. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 672 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 8th February, 2011. M/s Om Logistics Ltd. Petitioner through Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate Versus Permanent Lok Adalat & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner – Transport Company seeks quashing of the Award-cum-Order dated 05.08.2010 [Annexure P-1] passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat [Public Utility Services], Ludhiana whereby it has been directed to pay `1,13,100/- along with interest @9% per annum to the New India Assurance Company Limited – respondent No. 2. [2]. The facts giving rise to the impugned award are that respondent No. 3 – M/s Shakunt Enterprises Private Limited engaged the petitioner Company for the delivery of the consignment dispatched on 17.03.2007 from Ludhiana to Pune. The consignment so dispatched was admittedly damaged and 160 spools/packages were delivered in broken condition at the destination station. The consignment was loaded in Truck No. HR46-C-0497 and it is an undisputed fact that the said truck over-turned on 21.03.2007 in the area of Naraina Gham, near Sangam River in Maharashtra allegedly while saving the precious life of a motor cyclist. Due to the said CWP No. 672 of 2011. ::-2-:: accident 160 packages of the consignment were damaged. [3]. Respondent No. 3 immediately lodged its claim with respondent No. 2 – Insurance company who in turn sent one Utpal Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the damage caused to the goods who submitted his report dated 10.04.2007 reporting the damage to the extent of `1,13,100/-. Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company paid the said amount to respondent No. 3, where upon respondent No. 3 executed a letter of subrogation and a Special Power of Attorney in favour of the Insurance Company who in turn approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, inter-alia, alleging that the damage to the consignment was caused due to carelessness, negligence and mishandling of the consignment by the employees of the petitioner Transport Company. [4]. The petitioner Company filed its reply denying the allegations of carelessness or negligence though admitting that the truck carrying the consignment met with an accident and over-turned causing damage to some of the packages. It was claimed that the consignment was loaded at the owner's risk and there was no fault of the truck driver as the accident occurred while saving the life of a motor cyclist and as such the petitioner Company was not liable to pay any compensation to the consignee or the Insurance Company. [5]. The Permanent Lok Adalat made efforts for a compromise in terms of Section 22-C[7] of the Legal Services Authorities Act to settle the dispute amicably but having failed in that regard, it proceeded under sub-Section [8] of Section 22-C of the Act and has decided the dispute vide the impugned award holding that the petitioner Company is liable to pay a sum of `1,13,100/- along CWP No. 672 of 2011. ::-3-:: with interest @9% per annum to the Insurance Company towards the damages/loss caused to the insured consignment. [6]. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that since intricate and disputed questions of facts were involved which could only be resolved by giving ample opportunities to the parties to lead their evidence, the Permanent Lok Adalat ought not to have assumed the role of a Civil Court and decide the dispute contrary to the Division Bench decision of this Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh v Permanent Lok Adalat and another, 2009[1] RCR [Civil], 410. [7]. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award. The fact that the petitioner – Transport Company was engaged to deliver the consignment from Ludhiana to Pune is not in dispute nor the fact that the consignment was duly insured with respondent No. 2 Insurance Company is questioned. Similarly, the fact that the truck loaded with the consignment met with an accident on 21.03.2007 while in the State of Maharashtra and 160 packages of the consignment were damaged are also candidly admitted by the petitioner. No evidence whatsoever was required to be led by the parties in respect of these admitted facts. The solitary question is as to whether or not the petitioner in terms of the binding contract between the parties is liable to pay the damages, is a question of law to be answered with reference to Sections 6 and 8 of the Carriers Act, 1865. [8] These provisions of the Carriers Act read as follows:- “6. In respect of what property liability of carrier not limited or affected by public notice:- The liability of any CWP No. 672 of 2011. ::-4-:: common carrier for the loss or damage to any property including container, pallet or similar article of transport used to consolidate goods delivered to him to be carried, not being of the description contained in the schedule to this Act, shall not be deemed to be limited or affected by any public notice. 8.Common carrier liable for loss or damage caused by neglect or fraud of himself or his agent,- Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, every common carrier shall be liable to the owner for loss of or damage to any property including container, pallet or similar article of transport used to consolidate goods delivered to such carrier to be carried where such loss or damage shall have arisen from the criminal act of the carrier or any of his agents or servants and shall also be liable to the owner for loss or damage to any such property other than property to which the provisions of Section 3 apply and in respect of which the declaration required by that section has not been made, where such loss or damage has arisen from the negligence of the carrier or any of his agents or servants”. [9] It could not be denied that there is no contract between the parties limiting the liability of the petitioner Company under the exception to Section 6 of the Carriers Act. Similarly, Section 9 of the Carriers Act absolves respondent No. 3 Company to prove that the damage to the consignment was caused due to 'negligence' or 'criminal act' of the petitioner Company. Respondent No. 3 was required to prove the actual loss, if any, suffered by it and it was for the petitioner to prove otherwise. The fact of matter is that 160 packages of the consignment were admittedly damaged and this fact stands proved from the report of the Loss Assessor and Surveyor stationed at Pune. The Insurance Company paid `1,13,100/- to CWP No. 672 of 2011. ::-5-:: respondent No. 3 Company as per the said report. That being so and the petitioner having failed to absolve itself from the statutory obligation under Section 6 and 9 of the Carriers Act, no case to interfere with the impugned award is made out. [10]. Dismissed. February 08, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE