Rajasthan High Court: In a civil revision challenging trial court’s order allowing the defendant to participate in the suit proceedings when the recovery suit is non-maintainable, a single-judge bench of Ashok Kumar Jain, J., held that compliance with Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 is a mandatory requirement for instituting a suit against a common carrier for loss or damage to a consignment and set aside the trial court’s order.
In the instant matter, a consignment booked by defendant 2, M/s. K.S. Commodities Pvt. Ltd. through the petitioner-defendant 1, Amrit Transport Co., was looted in transit. An FIR was filed, and compensation was claimed under a marine policy issued by the plaintiff- respondent 1, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff, after compensating the consignee, filed a civil suit for recovery of ₹2,71,717/- against petitioner, alleging failure to safely deliver goods consigned by defendant 2 which were looted en route to Wagha Border (Punjab). The plaintiff relied on a claim bill dated 03.03.2014 as a notice under Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007.
Initially, the suit was decreed ex-parte on 09-09-2019. The ex-parte decree was set aside upon the defendant’s application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), allowing the defendant to participate in the proceedings. The defendant subsequently filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that no notice was served under Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, making the suit non-maintainable.
The main issue in the instant matter is whether a claim voucher submitted by the plaintiff could be treated as a notice under Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007.
The Petitioner contended that Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act mandates serving a written notice before filing a suit for loss or damage to consignment and the plaintiff failed to comply with this requirement. It was contended that the claim bill produced by the plaintiff did not qualify as a valid notice under the law as it lacked essential elements such as a clear demand for compensation or an assertion of liability. The petitioner cited Essemm Logistics v. Darcl Logistics Ltd., (2023) 9 SCC 753, where the Supreme Court held that a specific notice setting out the cause of action and relief is mandatory for claims involving loss of consignment.
The Court noted that Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act explicitly requires a written notice to be served on the common carrier within 180 days of the consignment’s booking before instituting a suit. The Court affirmed that the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Essemm Logistics (Supra) makes notice a mandatory requirement for claims regarding loss of consignment.
The Court stated that the claim voucher produced by the plaintiff did not fulfill the purpose of a notice, as it failed to clearly demand compensation or set out the cause of action and relief. The Court stated that a valid notice under Section 16 must explicitly outline the cause of action, damage, loss, and relief sought.
The Court asserted that the trial court has committed a serious error while construing the provision under Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act as no notice was served upon the petitioner before filing a suit for recovery of money.
The Court set aside the trial court’s order, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for non-compliance with Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act and allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court granted liberty to the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit after complying with the mandatory notice requirement under Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act.
[Amrit Transport Co. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 330/2024, Decided on 16-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj with Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner
