Claim Bill Cannot Be Treated As Notice Under Sec 16 of Carriage By Road Act: Rajasthan HC Rejects Insurance Company's Suit Against Transporter

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Claim Bill doesn't fulfil the mandate of a Notice as provided under Section 16 of the Carriage By Road Act, 2007 and has rejected a Suit filed by the Insurance Company against a Transport Company non-compliance with Section 16.

The Court was considering a Revision Petition against an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that no notice was served before instituting suit.

The single bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain held, "Ordinarily, notice herein means that on the basis of a particular cause of action a liability is fastened upon someone to demand particular amount in pursuant to cause of action and in failing to take steps legal proceedings has been suggested. A notice is for demand of justice and if, it does not fulfill the basic purpose then, the Court may observe that the notice does not comply with the provision of law. Herein, a claim bill which was issued by M/s. K.S. Commodities Pvt. Ltd. does not contain any of the essential ingredient to fulfil same and treat same as notice."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Abhishek Bhardwaj with Advocate Shantanu Sharma.

Counsel for Petitioner submitted that Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 provides that it is necessary to serve a notice before the institution of a suit or legal proceeding. He referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Essemm Logistics Vs. Darcl Logistics Limited and Ors. He argued that a claim bill cannot be treated as a notice since when a specific provision has been inserted in the Act, then it is necessary to make compliance before filing the suit.

The Court concluded that a Claim Bill cannot be treated to be the same as a Notice under Section 16 of the Carriage By Road Act.

"The trial court has committed serious error while construing the provision under Section 16 of the Act of 2007. As no notice was served upon present petitioner before filing a suit for recovery of money, therefore, the suit cannot be instituted in view of bar as contained under Section 16 of the Act of 2007," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Amrit Transport Company vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Click here to read/ download Order