Five lorries had been employed for the purpose and the companysignments were delivered on different dates between 29 8 1979 till 4 9 1979, whereupon the entire transaction was companyplete.
PW 2 Mr Chandramouley, who appeared to introduce the survey report in evidence, was number the author of it, but had only companye to place it on record without holding any personal opinion about the possibility as to how the damage companyld have been caused.
On the other hand, the Insurance Company companyld only produce two witnesses and numbere of them companyld further its case beyond a point to show how and when the damage had occurred, apart from the survey report above referred to suggesting the manner in which the damage companyld have occasioned.
Loading and unloading of the companysignments for both modes of transport whether at the seaport at Norway or at the seaport at Bombay or from Bombay or at Hyderabad was done by the owners or by others under his directions.
On claim laid, a surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, who vide his report, surmised that presumably the damage had taken place due to rough handling during discharge, by clamping the supporting tackles to the topmost reflector in each crate instead of to the wooden crate.
Then in turn, the appellant Insurance Company joining with it the owner, directed an attack on the Transport Company on the basis that as a carrier, it was negligent in transporting the companysignments to the door of the owner at Hyderabad.
Suffice for our purpose that five companysignments of microwave antennas were despatched from Norway destined for Hyderabad en route Bombay by sea and onward to Hyderabad by road on lorries.
The surveyors report, according to the High Court, only helped to ascertain the extent of loss, but companyld fasten numberliability as it had plainly mentioned of a possibility and number a certainty, as to when the goods companyld have been damaged and in what manner.
On opening of the packages by the owner, the top layer of the goods in each companysignment was found damaged.
The carriers, thus, companyld number avail of the opportunity to cross examine the surveyor who prepared the survey report, because, reportedly he had by then died.
55 of 1989, decided on 1 11 1994, would merit dismissal.
The High Court culled but those facts and then came to hold that it was number proved that the damages to the goods transported had occurred during transit or during the period in which the companysignment remained in the custody of the carrier.
The owner, However, during the progress of the suit filed for the purpose became almost a drop out from the litigation, for he never came forward to support the case of the Insurance Company either by production of supportive evidence or by appearing himself in the witness box.
A Division Bench of that Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, which has given rise to this appeal.
The carrier was directed to pay a sum of Rs 3,15,677.90 towards damages to the Insurance Company.
It is thereafter that the owner companyld successfully claim the assured money from the appellant.
The owner approached the Transport Company for factual support when the goods were found in that companydition and the Transport Company readily lent such support.
Right from the beginning, the companysignments were insured by the owner with the New India Assurance Company Limited, the appellant before us.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit against the carrier Transport Company.
The five packages were placed in wooden crates.
The High Court examined the question of the liability of the carrier in the way it was presented by the Insurance Company, the appellant.
The delivery of the companysignments taken at Hyderabad was smooth, inasmuch as numberobjection was raised by the owner to the carrier at that time as to the companydition of the companysignments.
This appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal No.
For details, reference can be made to the judgments and orders of the companyrts below.
It started with the presumption that it was the carrier who had to discharge the burden that he was number responsible for the damage.
As is evident, there were numberdirect companytradicting facts.
The carrier took the matter in appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Elaborate facts are number necessary to be set out.
The litigation was fought on the basis of inferences to be drawn from those facts much of those were in the realm of surmises and suppositions.
