MOHAN AZAD Vs. PARTAP SINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal of the defendants - appellants is directed against the judgement and decree dated 15.7.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla whereby he reversed the judgement and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Rohru and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff as pleaded is that he is an orchardist, who in order to transport his apple crop to the marked on 8.8.1995, hired a truck bearing No. HIN 5286 through the appellants. The said truck was not registered at that time with the Union being run by the appellants, as a result whereof an amount of Rs.100/ - against receipt was paid on 8.8.1995. Thereafter the plaintiff insured his 415 apple boxes vide Growers Beneficial Scheme No. 000159 dated 8.8.1995 by paying Rs.300/ - as insurance fee to the appellants. Unfortunately this truck alongwith the consignment met with an accident in which entire consignment of 415 boxes was badly damaged and spoiled and became unmarketable. Based on such averments a suit for recovery of Rs.1,10,000/ - was filed.

(3.) THE defendants filed written statement wherein a number of preliminary objections were taken which included maintainability, the receipt No. 000159 being tampered with and duplicate thereof not bearing any cutting were taken. It was further alleged that plaintiffs - respondents had not mentioned the G.R. and challan number vide which 415 boxes of apple were loaded in the truck, which met with an accident. The alleged insurance was cancelled by the defendant appellant No.3 and the plaintiff was therefore not entitled to claim any compensation from the defendants. On merits, the defendants had denied the averments made in the plaint and it was emphatically denied that receipt was to be entered prior to loading of 415 boxes in the truck or that the value of such apple was Rs.1,10,000/ -. The factum of issuance of receipts for Rs.100/ - and Rs.300/ - was admitted, but it was asserted that insurance would have been valid only when the truck was produced before the office of the Union and was inspected by the officials of the Union at its office at Hatkoti. It was denied that officials of the Union had visited the spot and collected the apples from the spot, rather it was asserted that the insurance was cancelled on finding that truck had already been met with an accident before the insurance was done. The cutting on the receipt of insurance was denied.