201sa457.08.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No.457 of 2008 (M/s Premier India Road Service vs. The Oriental Insurance Company and anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : January 20, 2010 Heard Mr. A. M. Adtani, Adv. for appellant. This appeal is preferred by the Original defendant against whom a decree has been passed for an amount of Rs.63,009/- with 12 % interest p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.56,970/- from the date of filing suit till its realisation. This decree was passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1151 of 2001 filed by the respondents herein. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have proved that plaintiff no.2 has a executed letter of subrogation in favour of plaintiff no.1 for recovery of amount and that plaintiffs have proved that, due to division on the part of defendants and its agent, they sustained damages of Rs.5360.90 kgs. of craft papers valued at Rs.56,969.87. It has further been held by the trial Court that the plaintiffs have proved that the defendant as a carrier is liable to pay said loss of consignment to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are also held entitled to interest @ 18% on the sum of Rs.56,970/-. On the appeal being preferred by the present appellant/Original defendant, the Appellate Court confirmed the 201sa457.08.odt 2 . findings of the trial Court by its judgment and order dt. 22.1.2008 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.547 of 2005. Thus, present appeal is filed by the Original defendant challenging the concurrent findings of facts. Mr. A. M. Adtani, Adv. for appellant has urged that a substantial question of law arises as to whether the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. According to him, the Premier India Road Carrier was the necessary party to the suit. The trial Court has considered this question and has recorded the finding that Premier India Roads Carrier and Premier India Roads Services are one and the same entity. In appeal, the Appellate Court has also appreciated the evidence on record and has held that both are the same entities and mere change in the last word ‘Service’ in place of ‘Carrier’ would not mean that these are two different entities. Both the Courts have, upon appreciation of evidence, recorded the findings. In the circumstances, I find no substantial question of law, which arises in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE jais