The judgment establishes the concept of absolute liability of a common carrier and the ability to limit liability through special contracts under the Carriers Act, 1865. It emphasizes the requirement for carriers to take reasonable precautions to avoid liability for loss or damage.

Headnote:
CARRIER LIABILITY - Loss of Goods - Carriers Act, 1865, S.6, S.8 - The judgment discusses the liability of a carrier for the loss of goods and the exceptions under the Carriers Act, 1865. It highlights the concept of absolute liability of a common carrier and the ability to limit liability through special contracts. The judgment emphasizes the requirement for carriers to take reasonable precautions to avoid liability for loss or damage.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff firm entrusted goods to the defendant for transportation, but the goods were lost in a fire at the defendant's premises. The trial court found the defendant liable as a carrier for the loss of the goods.
Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the absolute liability of a common carrier and the requirement for carriers to take reasonable precautions to avoid liability for loss or damage.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant, as a carrier, was liable for the loss of goods and if the exceptions under the Carriers Act, 1865 applied.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment establishes the concept of absolute liability of a common carrier and the ability to limit liability through special contracts under the Carriers Act, 1865. It emphasizes the requirement for carriers to take reasonable precautions to avoid liability for loss or damage.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was entitled to the decree sought. The defendant was held liable for the loss of the goods.

Judgment :-

1. The defendant, a firm engaged in the business of sale of goods, challenges in this appeal a decree for damages granted to the plaintiff for loss of goods of the plaintiff entrusted to the defendant at Trichur as a carrier to be transported to Willingdon Island and. delivered there. The plaintiff firm booked 15 cases of banians to self on 14-12-1974 at Trichur and paid the lorry; charges. The destination was Willingdon Island. But the office at the Willingdon Island did not deliver the goods and the plaintiff was informed that the goods had been lost by fire. The fire was on 19-12-1974, five days of the consignment of the goods. According to the defendant the goods were lost by fire and such fire was caused by short circuit of electric wires. That was said to be not on account of negligence or carelessness of the defendant and hence the defendant urged that he was not liable. The facts are more or less admitted and on these facts the trial court found that the defendant as carrier must answer for the loss of the goods. Accordingly a decree was granted for the value of such goods.

2. The entrustment of the goods, arrival of the goods at Willingdon Island, the fire that broke out in the premises of the defendant at Willingdon Island at 3 A. M. on 19-12-1974, the loss of the goods and consequently the non-delivery are all admitted in this case. If the defendant has failed to deliver the goods not on account of any negligence or carelessness, would the defendant be liable is the question which naturally arises for consideration. If the defendant was merely a bailee of goods he would not be liable to answer as an insurer. But the liability of a carrier in India, as in England, is more extensive and that liability is that of an insurer. We do not want to go into this question in detail because we are in agreement with the view expressed by one of us in R. R. N. Ramalinga v. Narayana, AIR. 1971 Kerala 197 where there has been a very detailed consideration of this question. We refer to Para.11 to 15 of that judgment:

11. A common carrier is not a mere bailee of goods entrusted to him. He is as insurer of goods. He is answerable for the loss of goods even when such loss is caused not by either negligence or want of care on his part, act of God and of King's enemies excepted. This arises because responsibility attached to the public nature of the business carried on by him. He holds out as a person who has the expertise and the facilities to conduct the business of transport; consequently he is treated as an insurer of the goods and is answerable for its loss. This concept as to the liability of a common carrier has been applied in India uniformaly. The rule of the Roman Law as to the liability of a carrier is different. It does not conceive of an absolute liability as in the English Common Law and the rule of the Roman Law has been adopted by many States in the continent.

The extent of liability of a bailee under S.151 and 152 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is different from the extent of liability of a common carrier. A bailee is only bound to take proper care of the goods and for loss beyond his control he is not answerable. But the provisions of the Indian Contract Act do not govern the liability of a common carrier nor do they override the provisions of the Carriers Act, 1865. This question was considered by the Privy Council in (1891) ILR 18 Cal. 620 (PC) and it was held that notwithstanding the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, the liability of a common carrier continues to be absolute subject to any special contracts entered into by him.

12. S.6 of the Carriers Act, 1865, enables common carriers to enter into special contracts so as to limit or restrict their liability. But this cannot be so restricted or limited as to avoid liability to answer even when the loss is caused by negligence or criminal acts of the common carrier or its agents. This is the purport of S.8 of the Act. Therefore, it is open to any comm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document