Regular Second Appeal No. 2296 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2296 of 2008. (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.5.2009 *** M/s Transport Corporation of India Ltd. .. Appellant VS. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents. With Regular Second Appeal No. 2487 of 2008. *** M/s Transport Corporation of India Ltd. .. Appellant VS. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Both the above referred regular second appeals are being disposed of by this common order passed in RSA No.2296 of 2008. Brief facts of the case are that some consignments containing different items in intact condition were booked by M/s Laxmi Machine Ltd., Coimbatore for its delivery to M/s Bharat Commerce Industries Limited, Birlagram, Nagda (M.P.), having its Divisional Office at Rajpura(Punjab) on 12.10.1994. However, the goods when delivered were found damaged, which were alleged to have damaged during transaction due to the negligence of consignor. After getting the loss assessed from the Surveyor, M/s Bharat Commerce Industries filed the claim of Rs.20752/- and Regular Second Appeal No. 2296 of 2008 2 Rs.61078/- in respect of two different consignments. But nothing was paid by the consignor, who in turn got issued the damage certificate dated 1.6.1995 to the consignee. Since the consignments were insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited, it settled the claim with the consignee and executed the special power of attorney and letter of subrogation authorizing insurer to institute the suit and to recover the claim for themselves. Accordingly, the insurer and consignee (plaintiffs No.1 and 2 respectively) filed two separate suits and sought recovery of Rs. 20752/- and Rs.61078/- by way of damages and loss under the Indian Carriers Act along with interest @ 24% per annum, arraying consignor M/s Transport Corporation of India, Secunderaband through its Director as well as Managers of its Rajpura and Coimbatore Branch. Upon notice of the suit, the case of the defendants was of total denial and they took somewhat similar stand in both the cases. They not only denied the factum of receipt of any consignment and delivery thereof to the plaintiff No.2, but also denied of having issued any damage certificate. That apart, they denied the service of any notice upon them besides denying any loss suffered by plaintiff No.2. They also took the objection that the Civil Court at Rajpura has no jurisdiction in the matter since the alleged consignment was sent from Andhra Pradesh to be delivered at a place in Madhya Pradesh. The learned trial court, on appreciation of evidence produced on record, concluded that the said consignments were handed over to the defendants for delivery, which were delivered at its destination in damaged condition and the liability of the loss suffered by plaintiff No.2 during transaction, is upon the carrier, as provided under Section 8 of the Carriers Act, 1865 and the defendants have to indemnify the plaintiffs for the said loss. Accordingly, both the suits were decreed in respect of the amounts claimed therein and pendente lite and future interest @ 12% and 6% per annum respectively was also awarded. Similar were the observations of the learned appellate Court, who while affirming the findings of the learned trial court, dismissed the appeals preferred by the defendants. Hence, the present suit. I have carefully gone through the paper-book and finds that no question of law is involved in the present case. It emerges out from the Regular Second Appeal No. 2296 of 2008 3 record that although the stand of the defendants was of total denial, but they failed to substantiate their plea. Their case that the documents relied by plaintiffs are forged, was totally shattered by their own witness i.e. DW.1 Sh. R.K. Misra, Branch Manager of Rajpura Branch. This witness not only admitted the receipts of consignments from M/s Luxmi Machine Works, Coimbatore for transporting the same to Nagda, but also admitted that the damage certificates were issued by their Company. This witness also admitted various correspondence made by plaintiff No.2 with their Company and reply thereto by them. On the other hand, the plaintiffs, on the strength of over-whleming evidence on record proved the loss suffered and assessed by the Surveyor, due to damage of the consigned goods. Thus, no fault could be found with the approach of the Courts below while holding the defendants liable to indemnify the plaintiffs towards the loss. With regard to the objection regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Rajpura is concerned, it is apt to mention here that no specific issue in this regard was framed by the learned trial court, although an objection to that effect was taken in the written statement. When the matter was argued before the appellate Court below such an objection was again taken, but it was held that the Civil Court at Rajpura has jurisdiction in the matter. Still further, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the objection of jurisdiction. But this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant regarding jurisdiction. Admittedly, the transporter-appellant is having its subordinate office at Rajpura, sued as defendant No.2. Similar is the position with firm (plaintiff No.2) to whom the goods were supplied which damaged during transaction and also the insurer (plaintiff No.1) of the goods, who are having their respective branch offices at Rajpura. A conjoint reading of Section 20 CPC and explanation provided thereto, it is emphatically clear that it is not the Court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the defendant is situate but also the Court in whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office. Thus, it cannot be said that the suit was bad on account of jurisdiction of the Court and accordingly the appellant cannot derive any benefit from the cases of New Moga Transport Company Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd & Ors. 2004(3) LJR 114, and Supra Enterprise Vs. Bygging India Limited 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 356. Regular Second Appeal No. 2296 of 2008 4 In view of the above, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below are either illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Therefore, there is no question of law raised in this appeal which may warrant its admission in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code. The appeals are wholly without merit and the same are accordingly dismissed in limine. Copy of this order be placed in connected RSA No. 2487 of 2008. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 11,2009 Jiten