K. Venkataswami, J. - (1.) The second defendant in O.S. No. 561 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's 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. 1,37,328/- with interest against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein. It was the case of the first respondent that the third respondent placed an order for despatch of 50 cases of 80s carded cotton yarn in cones on 26-6-75 through the appellant. The Bank of Baroda, Bhiwandi, Bombay, was named as Consignee. According to the first respondent, the Clerk attached to the appellant-Transport Company's Booking Office at Coimbatore issued five Lorry Receipts bearing Nos. 1451 to 1455, each for ten cases. The first respondent drew five Hundies bearing Nos. 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. The goods, that were sent as above, were insured with the second respondent. It is the further case of the first respondent that the third respondent-Dealer, on payment of necessary amount against Hundi No. 406 relating to Lorry Receipt No. 1451, got the Lorry Receipt from the Bank and took delivery of ten cases from the appellant at Bhiwandi. 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. It is under these circumstances that aggrieved by the action of the third respondent in getting 40 cases of cotton yarn delivered without payment, the suit was filed for recovery of the amount as stated above.
(2.) The appellant and respondents 2 and 3 contested the suit denying their respective liability. In particular, the appellant denied that there was any privity of contract between itself and the first respondent. According to the appellant, it has no Branch 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. Likewise, the Insurance Company and the third respondent also denied their liabilities.
(3.) The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence, found that the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 were liable. However, the Court passed a decree only against the second respondent-Insurance Company.;