Case Summary
Nidish Lal.V filed a suit against Aleppey Parcel Service and its Branch Manager for compensation due to loss incurred from goods that were not delivered on time. The plaintiff claims negligence on part of the defendant led to significant financial loss.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court has found that the defendant cannot be held liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiff due to a failure to prove their case. The suit stands dismissed.
Key Reasoning:
The evidence demonstrated that the defendant carrier was not responsible for the damages caused to the goods based on the terms of their contract.
The evidence demonstrated that the defendant carrier was not responsible for the damages caused to the goods based on the terms of their contract.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The evidence before the court would clearly show that the defendant cannot be held liable as per the terms and conditions of the contract between them.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result the suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nidish Lal.V
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Aleppey Parcel Service
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Branch Manager, Aleppey Parcel Services
- Relation
- Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Debit Note with E-way Bill No. 541044832571, Report with LR No. P5AA00199186, Copy of notice to the Claims, Aleppey Parcel Service, Copy of Advocate Notice, Acknowledgment card
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Kowdiar S. Mohandas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Mridul John Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Rajmohan.G.J
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The plaintiff sought damages for the loss of goods due to the defendants' negligence.
Evidence:
Therefore from the conspectus of aforesaid facts I am of the opinion that the defendant cannot be held liable for the damage is any alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Debit Note with E-way Bill
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document supports the claim of loss and details the consignment details.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This report provides details about the consignment and its condition.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Copy of notice to the Claims
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was issued to claim for compensation due to loss.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Copy of Advocate Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was a follow-up to the previous notice demanding compensation.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Acknowledgment card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document confirms receipt of the Advocate Notice by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Compensation and Damages
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Negligence of carrier
Case Code
Case between Nidish Lal.V vs Aleppey Parcel Service et al regarding realization of money and damages.
Case Code Year
Case between Nidish Lal.V vs Aleppey Parcel Service et al regarding realization of money and damages.