The High Court · 2025

Sri M K Viswanath Naidu Counsel for the Respondent No 1 Sri G Rama Manoja CITY CIVIL COURT AP PEAL NO :274 OF 2OO3 Appeal under section 96 of cpc against the Judgment and Decree dated 30- 04-2003 made in o s No.761 of '1999 on the file of the court of the Vll senior civit Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad Between: l! q S .& CoJ!p?!y, No.405, Minar Apartments Deccan Towers Bashberbagh, Hyderabad-50000 1 ANO 1. United lndia Insurance co Ltd ,.Divisionar office, rX May Fair comprex 1st Floor, S.P. Road, Secunderabad

2. Mls. ITC Agro Tech Ltd.. No.31, S.D. Road Secunderabad ...Defendant / Appellant ...Plaintiffs / Respondents l.A. NO: 1 OF 2003 (C MP. NO: 19041 oF 2003) Petition under Section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Decree and Judgment dt.3o-04-2003 passed in os No.761 of 1999 on the file of the VI Senior Civit Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent No 1 Counsel for the Respondent No 2 : : : Sri M K Viswanath Naidu Sri G Rama Manoja Sri M S Srinivasa lyengar The Court delivered the following Common Judgment : /n THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CITY CML COURT APPEAL Nos.264 a,[.d 274 of 2OO3 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are filed against the Judgment and decree dated 30.04.2O03 in O.S.Nos.760 and 761 of 1999, passed by the learned VII-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

2. The aforesaid suits uide O.S.Nos.760 and 761 of 1999 were fi led by respondents/plaintiffs against appellant/defendant [or recovery of Rs.2,39,978.55 Ps. and Rs.4,17,019.1O. Ps. respectivel,'. The trial Court got examined P.W. I on behalf of Respondents/ Plaintiffs and marked Exs.Al to A6 on their behalf. D-Ws. I and 2 were marked on behalf of the appellant/ delendant and marked Exs.Bl and E}2 on their behalf and als<-r marked Ilx.X I -Statement of imported oils and shortagc of thc appellant/delendant. The trial Court after considering the I oral and documentary evidence of both sides, decreed the suits for entire amount. Aggrieved by the said Judgments, defendant therein preferred the present appeals.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant mainlv contendcd that physical loss towards shortage of delivcn of ?. Palm Oil and crude Sunflower Oil claimed by the.plaintiffs was quantified and proportionate value deducted in the freight bill of defendant, as such there is no pending liability on the appellant/ defendant. The cost of entire short supply was already recovered from the appellant, as such the claim of respondents is not maintainable. Exs'B I and 82 dated 07.05.1996 confirms the f-rnal settlement of the account of the appellant and payment of the balance amount of Rs'1,26,209/- to the appellant as full and final settlement, but the trial Court relied upon Exs.A4 and A5 dated O5.O2 1996 and 06'02'1996 respectively and erred in not considering Exs Bl and 82' The said amount was recovered from the defendant's freight bills' The trial Court erred in treating thc claim as over and above O.5%o loss of shortage as agreed betwcen respondents' Appellant has already paid the loss of over and above O'37o according to the agreement dated 18.07.1995 by way of deducting freight charges. Appellant was madc to pay the loss even for the allowable shortage of O.37., rvhich is contrary to the spirit of the agreement. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court

4. Parties herein are referrcd as plaintiffs and defendant as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. i:' a 3

5. The brief averments of the plaint are that plaintiff No.l is the Insurance Company and carries on business in General Insurance. In the regular course of business, they issued Marine policies to plaintiff No.2 ui.de policies No.os15O2/21 / Irl2OO2/2005s/9s, dated 12.10.1995, and No.o5 1 502 / 2 1 I | | / 2088 / 2OO48 / 95, dated 26.O9.1995 to cover the risk of transit for import of Palm Oil and Sunflower Oil. The plaintiff No.2 imported 5OOO M.Ts of Palm Oil from Butterworth, Malaysia worth Rs. 12,63,04,500/- and, 42OO M.Ts of irude Sunflower Oil from Necochea port, Argenlina, worth Rs. 1i,06,62,2OO/-. The vessel carrying Palm Oil re4ched Vishakapatnam Port on 18.1O.1995 and the vessel carrying Sunflower Oil reached Vishakapatnam Port on O2.11.1995. The said consignments were entrusted to the defendant carrier for safe carriage in their tankers to various destinations. The cargo was unloadecl from the shore tanks at the port and loaded into wagons meant for delivery at various points and the process ol unloading at thc port and also at all points of destinations was supervised by M/s.T-C.R.C.Surveyors and Assessors Pvt. Ltd., and on intimation of shortages by plaintiff No.2, they conducted survey and submitted report on 13.02.1996, assessing the loss due to shortages to the extent of 9.5OO M.Ts of Palm Oil and

15.83O M.Ts of Sunflower Oil, as such plaintiff No.2 issued 4 notices dated 05.02. 1996, to the defendant intimating shortages during loading/unloading at various points and raised a claim of Rs.2,85,0O0/- and Rs.4,74,9OO l- respectively and 1oo/o each towards freight charges and expenses towards compensating loss. The said notices were acknowledged by the defendant and they certified the shortages on 06.02.1996, but they neglected and failed to settle the account. The plaintiff No.I was constrained to settle the account, as such they paid Rs.4,76,825 I - and Rs. 12,78 ,a91 I - by way of Cheques bearing Nos.980023 dated 26.07.1996 and No.98O053 dated O8.O8. 1996. The plaintiff No.2 executed the letter of subrogation and Special Power of Attorney in favour of ptaintiff No. 1 and defendant has to indemnify the plaintiff No.1 to reimburse the same towards damages in consignment, as such plaintiffs filed the suits for recovery of amount of Rs.2,39,978.55 Ps and Rs.4,17,091.1O Ps. ,:i'

6. Defendant in their written statcmcnt denied the f d have no knowledee - ::ri'';- -.qI',+-:':;e13i1El+t*..rr.-i4it5Fs#ilB[E*e*Bi. of issuance of Marine Policy to plaintiff No.2 on 12.10.1995 and

26.09.L995. Plaintiff No.2 hired their services to transport Palm Oil and Sunflower Oil to various destinations and it was entrusted to them with 121 1.22O M.Ts of palm Oil and (1 -5

1078.035 M.Ts of Sunflower Oil to transport and unload the same at different places. Accordingly, the sarne was transported. Later, plaintiff No.2 issued notice stating that there was shortage of 9.5OO M.Ts of palm Oil and 15.g30 M.Ts of crude Sunflower Oil and claimed a sum of Rs.2,85,OOO /_ and Rs.4,74,9OO/- respectively, towards loss of the same and the said amounts were adjusted towards freight charges payable by plaintiff No.2. The plaintiff No.2 also issued a final settlement of account. Defendant denied the supervision of M/s.T.C.R.C.Surveyors and Assessors pvt. Ltd., and denied the short delivery due to negligence of their employees and fihally stated that the claim was already adjusted and plaintiff No.2 has no claim against them.

7. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence of both sides held that basing on the report of the surveyors, there was short delivery of 9.S0O M.Ts of Palm Oil and 15.930 M..l.s of crude Sunflower Oil and there was no dispute regarding the said fact. Though, the consignment was delivered, there was shortage of consignment. D.W. I in his Cross-cxamination stated that he did not know about the freight chargcs payable by rhe plainriff No.2 for the consignment and he has not fited any document to show that 6 I plaintiff No.2 deducted the loss sustained by them towards shortage of goods, from the freight charges payable to defendant. Even as per the evidence of D.W.2, the amount paid by the plaintiff No.1 to the plaintiff No.2 towards settlement was over and above 0.57o as agreed between the plaintiffs and accordingly decreed the suit with interest.

8. Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding rhe fact that consignment was entrusted to defendant and there is shortage of 9.50O M.Ts of Palm Oil and 15.83O M.Ts of crude Sunflower Oil as per the survey report. Though D.W.1 stated rhat they adjusted the amount from the freight charges, he did not know about the freight charges and he has not filed any document to substantiate his version, as such the trial Court rightll. decreed both the suits with interest. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.

9. In the result, the present appeals are dismissed, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 3O-O4.20O3 in O.S.Nos.760 and 761 of 1999, passed by the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. I 7 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. SRINIVAS PUTY REGISTRAR ,l ECTION OFFICER To, I l.TheVlllseniorCivilJudge,CityCivilCourt,Hyderabad(withrecords,ifany) 2. One CC to Sri M K Viswanath Naidu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G Rama Manoja, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri M S Srinivasa lyengar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies VA/gh HIGH COURT DATED:02 n1,2025 1t\f SIA|6: t .f, o o 21 ilr$ a6 a t r ( 3 DRAFTS ) COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE CCCA.Nos.264 & 274 of 2003 DISMISSING THE APPEALS r t{- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 264 OF 2003 Between: N.C.S, & Company, No. 405, Minar Apartments, Deccan Towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500001 AND 1. United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, lX May Fair Complex, 1st Floor, S.P. Road, Secunderabad

2. M/s. ITC Agro Tech. Ltd., No.31, S.D.Road, Secunderabad ...Defendant / Appellant ...Plaintiffs / RespondenG Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 30- 04-2003 made in o.s.No.76o of 1999 0n the file of the court of the Vll senior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri M K Viswanath Naidu, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri G Rama Manoja, Advocate for the Respondent No. 'l . This Court doth Order and decree as follows:-

1. That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30-04-2003 made in O.S.No.760 of 1999; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal; //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Vlll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2 Two CD Copies DEP Sd/- T. SRINIVAS TY REGISTRAR o \.FEC TION OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED:02101t2025 DECREE GCCA.No.264 of 2003 DISMISSING-THE APPEAL 3 2) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CITY CIVIL COU RT APPEAL NO:274 OF 2003 Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 30- o4-20o3 made in o.s.No.761 0f 1999 0n the file of the court of the Vll Senior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad Between: N.C-S. & Company, No.405. Minar Apartments Deccan Towers Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500001 AND 1. United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd . Divisional Office, lX May Fair Complex 1st Floor, S.P. Road, Secunderabad

2. M/s. ITC Agro Tech Ltd,. No 31, S D Road Secunderabad ...Defendant / Appellant Plaintiffs / Respondents ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearrng and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M K Viswanath Naidu, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri G Rama Manola, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1; Sri M S Srinivasa lyengar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2- This Court doth Order and decree as follows.-

1. That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30-04-2003 made in O S No.761 of 1999, and // To,

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal; //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR .t' SECTION OFFICER \ '1. The Vlll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. 2.fwo CD Copies +. J HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 DECREE GCCA.No.274 of 2OO3 DISMISSING THE APPEAL s;n 9