Whether carrier can seek rejection of plaint for non-serving the notice before filling suit against them?

-

 


 


Mr. A booked a consignment with carrier. The carrier filed a suit against Mr. A for recovery of money. Mr. A filed a counter-claim for compensation on account of loss of business opportunity, loss of reputation and idle men & machine. The carrier filed Order 7 Rule 11(d) contending that counter-claim/ plaint is barred by section 16 of Carriage by Road act, 2007 which bars any suit or legal proceedings against carrier for loss or damage to the consignment unless prior notice been served before institution of suit or legal proceedings. The trial court allowed the Order 7 Rule 11 and rejected the counter claim. The Hon’ble High Court affirm the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that[1]:

 

(I)             Section 16 is applicable only in respect of institution of a suit or legal proceeding against a common carrier for any loss of, or damage to, the consignment. The use of the word “Consignment” in the said provision is very material. 

 

(II)          It denotes that the suit and legal proceedings in connection with the loss or damage to the consignment alone are covered by it for which purpose, a notice is mandatory.

 

(III)       The said provision has no application in reference to loss of any other kind or the suit or legal proceedings instituted for recovery of damages in respect of loss of different nature.

 

(IV)       The provision of Section 16 of the new Act does not come into play vis-à-vis the condition of giving a notice in respect of claims for damages for the loss of reputation, business opportunity etc. as such claims are not in connection with the damage or loss to the consignment.

 


[1] Essemm Logistics v. Darcl Logistics Limited, 01/05/2023, SLP (C) No.24340 of 2019

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relationship must
Read more

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: THE UNFERTILE CROP

-
Image
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: THE UNFERTILE CROP SHUBHAM BUDHIRAJA [1] Digital images are no different from the droplets of rain that fall, merge, and then divide: there is no telling whether the droplets that split are identical to the droplets that came together to form the larger droplet [2] . INTRODUCTION Law may be divided into substantive and procedural laws. The laws by which rights, duties and liabilities are defined are called substantive law whereas laws which prescribe mode by which application of substantive law is regulated are called procedural law. Law of Evidence is a judicial recognition to the system of logical reasoning. The Indian Evidence act, 1872 is a bunch of 167 sections divided into 11 chapters and 3 parts. Part II, Chapter V is headed as “of Documentary Evidence” is of relevance for our discussion in this article. At the threshold, it is submitted that the proving of oral evidence are in contrast to the proving of documentary
Read more

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors, (2003) 5 SCC 23 The legislati
Read more