P. RAMA RAOversusP. NIRMALA AND ORS.

A                                 P.RAMARAO
                                          v.
                             P. NIRMALA AND ORS.

                                 DECEMBER 5, 1996
B
             [K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]

          Carriers Act, 1865 :

           Section 1(}-Suit against carriei-Notice f01~Limitation perio(}-
C   Petitioner a co'1tractor with Indian Oil Co1poration canying on transp01tation
    of petroleum products-Respondent-owner of a truck engaged for oil
    deliverr-Accident of truck-Leakage of oil-Suit filed by petitioner for
    recoveiy of amount of short delivery along with interest-Suit decreed by Trial
    Court and confinned by First Appellate Court-On appeal High Court set
D   aside the decree against Insurance Company on the ground that notice under
    Section 10 was not issue(}-Appeal-ffeld, the owner of the truck had an
    insurance policy with the respondent-Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co.
    Ltd.-Ultimately, the liability was sought to be fastened on the insurance
    company as insurer, for the liability of common carrie1~As a result, notice
    has to be issued, when the damage was caused to the goods which were being
E   canied due to an accident covered under the policy of insurance-So~ a notice
    under Section 10 was required to be issued to the Insurance G'on111any within
    six months from the date of the knowledge of the injury to or loss of the goods
    entrusted for carriage before filing the suit-Admittedly, such a notice was
    issued after the expiry of six months from the date of the accident-Therefore
F   the suit against the Insurance Company would not lie, though a suit may lie
    against the common canie1-Notice issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to
    the petitioner as well as common carrier and the Insurance Company would
    not be construed to be a notice under Section JO.

G        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
    No. 25126 of 1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.95 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in L.P.A. 239 of 1993.

H         A.T.M. Sampath for the Pet;tioner.
                                      576
                        P.R. RAOv. F. NIRMAlA                           577

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :                         A
      This special leave petition is from the judgment of the Division Bench
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated December 6, 1995 made in LPA
No. 239 of 1993.

       The admitted position is that the petitioner is a registered contractor B
with the Indian Oil Corporation for transportation of the petroleum
products within Andhra Pradesh from Vishakhapatnam to Hyderabad. It
would appear that he engaged one P. Nirmala, the owner bearing truck
No. OHL 2182 and entrusted 12000 Lts. of oil for delivery at Hyderabad
on July 9, 1982. It is now not in dispute that on account of the accident of C
the truck there was a leakage of oil. As a consequence, only 1755 Lts. were
delivered resulting in shortage of the rest, namely 10245 Lts. The suit was
filed by the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 66,212.36 with interest
against P. Nirmala, the truck owner and the insurer, Oriental Fire and
General Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 4 in the special leave
petition. The Trial Court decreed the suit and on appeal the learned single D
judge confirmed the same. The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set
aside the decree as against respondent No. 4 on the ground that notice
under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 (for short, the 'Act') was not
issued and, therefore, the suit against the insurer would not lie. Thus, this
special leave petition.                                                        E

      Shri A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends
that since the petitioner is not the carrier, the need to issue notice does
not arise. However, even if it is to be so, such a notice has been issued
within six months by the Indian Oil Corporation, marking a copy to the
Insurance Company. So, the suit is within limitation. We find no force in      F
the contention. Section 10 of the Act reads as under :

        ''No suit shall be instituted against a common carrier for the loss
        of, or injury to, goods entrusted to him for carriage unless notice
        in writing of the loss or injury has been given to him before the G
        institution of the suit and within six months of the time when the
        loss or injury first came to the knowledge of the plaintiff."

      Admittedly, notice was issued by the petitioner on July 5, 1983 after
the expiry or six months' time. A reading of Section 10, it would make it
clear that no suit shall be instituted against common carrier for the loss of H
    578                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A or injury to goods entrusted to him for carriage, unless notice in writing of
  the loss of or injury to the goods has been given to him before the
  institution of the suit within six months of the time when the loss of or
  injury to the goods first came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The
  admitted position is that P. Nirmala, the owner of the truck had an
  insurance policy with the 4th respondent-Oriental Fire & General In-
B surance Co. Ltd. Ultimately, the liability is sought to be fastened on the
  insurance company as insurer, for the liability of common carrier As a
  result, notice has to be issued, when the damage was caused to the goods
  which is being carried due to an accident covered under the policy of
  insurance. So, a notice under Section 10 is required to be issued to the
C Insurance Company within six months from the date of the knowledge if
  the injury to or loss of the goods entrusted for carriage before filing the
  suit. In fact, admittedly, such a notice was issued on July 5, 1983, namely,
  after the expiry of six months from the date of the accident, namely, July
  9, 1982. The appellant-petitioner stepped into the shoes of the carrier, i.e.,
D P. Nirmala. Notice issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to the petitioner
  as well as common carrier and the Insurance Company would not be
  construed to be a notice under Section 10. Under these circumstances, it
  must be held that the suit against the Insurance Company would not lie,
  though a suit may lie against the common carrier.

E         The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

    T.N.A.                                                   Petition dismissed.