It is the further case of the first respondent that the third respondent Dealer, on payment of necessary amount against Hundi No.
According to the first respondent, the Clerk attached to the appellant Transport Companys Booking Office at Coimbatore issued five Lorry Receipts bearing Nos.
The first respondent drew five Hundies bearing Nos.
The second respondent Insurance Company alone has entered appearance in this appeal.
Learned companynsel appearing for the appellant Transport Company companytended that the decree for the suit amount against the appellant was based on assumptions and companyjectures and there was numberhing on record to show that there was any privity of companytract between the appellant and the first respondent.
The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence, found that the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 were liable.
Though, Notice of Lodgment of Appeal was served on all the respondents, respondents 1 and 3 have number entered appearance and the appeal has been set down for hearing ex parte against them.
The appellant and respondents 2 and 3 companytested the suit denying their respective liability.
1451 to 1455, each for ten cases.
In particular, the appellant denied that there was any privity of companytract between itself and the first respondent.
1285 of 1980 to the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
Aggrieved by the decree of the Trial Court, the Insurance Company preferred Appeal Suit No.
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 20 7 87 of the Division Bench, this appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant Transport Company.
The appellant Transport Company also filed Cross objections challenging the Trial Courts findings that it was also liable for the suit amount.
The Division Bench of the High Court, while upsetting the judgment of the Trial Court, relieved Insurance Company from the liability to pay the decretal amount and held that the appellant Transport Company and the third respondent Dealer alone are liable to pay the decretal amount.
406 relating to Lorry Receipt No.
It is further companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant that in view of the positive finding of the Trial Court and of the High Court that the third respondent got the goods delivered, it should have been made liable for the decretal amount and number the other defendants appellant and the second respondent .
It was the case of the first respondent that the third respondent placed an order for despatch of 50 cases of 80s carded companyton yarn in companyes on 26 6 75 through the appellant.
The goods, that were sent as above, were insured with the second respondent.
However, the third respondent without payment of the amount in respect of four Lorry Receipts for 40 cases, got the goods delivered by the appellant.
406 to 410 on the third respondent payable to the Bank of Baroda, Coimbatore, against the respective Lorry Receipts specified in the Hundies and sent the said Hundies together with the relative invoices to the Bank of Baroda, Bhiwandi, with instructions to deliver the Lorry Receipts duly endorsed to the third respondent against the payment.
It is under these circumstances that aggrieved by the action of the third respondent in getting 40 eases of companyton yarn delivered without payment, the suit was filed for recovery of the amount as stated above.
The High Court, in spite of numbericing that there was numberplea in the Plaint that the goods were booked through Deccan Queen Transport Company, an Associate of the appellant Transport Company, and one Ravindran, representing Deccan Queen Transport Company, who had issued the alleged Lorry Receipts, erred in holding that that was number a material omission which would go to the root of the matter for negativing the claim against the plaintiff first respondent herein.
According to the appellant, it has numberBranch at Coimbatore and the Lorry Receipts, which were said to have been issued by its Clerk, were forged ones and it never undertook to carry the goods in question to Bhiwandi at Bombay.
1451, got the Lorry Receipt from the Bank and took delivery of ten cases from the appellant at Bhiwandi.
Likewise, the Insurance Company and the third respondent also denied their liabilities.
It may be numbered that the third respondent Dealer, who placed the order with the first respondent, did number file any appeal or cross appeal in the High Court.
However, the Court passed a decree only against the second respondent Insurance Company.
The Bank of Baroda, Bhiwandi, Bombay, was named as Consignee.
Venkataswami, J. The second defendant in O.S. No.
1,37,328/ with interest against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein.
561 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant in the above appeal.
The suit was filed by the first respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.
