A common carrier is liable for the loss of goods, regardless of negligence, and is considered an insurer of goods, except for acts of God and King's enemies.

About the facts of the case there is no material dispute. The controversy concerns the law applicable to the facts. The question is one of liability of a public carrier who carried goods and lost them due to circumstances beyond his control.

2. Mainly two questions arise and those are:

(i) Is the defendant a common carrier?

(ii) Can the destructive acts of an unruly mob be characterised as act of God?

3. Now the facts. On 8-11-1964 the plaintiff purchased 18 bags of green gram at Kottar in the Kaniyakumari District of the Madras State and booked it with the defendant for transportation to Quilon in one of his lorries. The defendant was running a lorry service under the name "R. R. N. Lorry Service." The goods were received by the defendant for transport to Quilon on 8-7-1964. But the goods were not delivered at Quilon as agreed upon. The suit was therefore filed for realisation of the price of the goods and interest thereon. The defence was that while the goods were being transported to Quilon the lorry was waylaid by a jatha at a place 11/2 miles to the east of Quilon and the unruly mob which formed the jatha robbed the goods.

It appears that the jatha was being taken out as a part of the food agitation and when they came across the defendant's lorry the mob attacked it and the goods were removed. The loss was therefore due to accident beyond the control of the defendant and it was therefore contended that defendant was not liable. There is, in fact, no plea that there was negligence on the part of the defendant and the circumstances also do not disclose any negligence or want of care. The circumstances which resulted in the loss of goods were not such as could have been prevented by the defendant. The question is whether defendant is liable in these circumstances.

4. The trial Court seemed to think that once it was shown that the defendant's conduct was not associated with negligence, he was not answerable. Of course, it is not disputed that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant. But the plaintiff's case is that a common carrier, which the defendant is cannot disown liability for loss caused by inevitable accidents. The only escape would be a loss caused by act of God or King's enemies and this is not one such. This necessitates a consideration of the question whether the defendant is a Common carrier and if he is, what is the nature and extent of his liability. It also remains to be considered whether inevitable accidents caused not by forces of nature but by human agency could be classed as acts of God.

5. The term "common carrier" having been denned in The Carriers Act of 1865 there would have been no necessity to go into the meaning of that term as conceived in the English Common Law had this been a case to which the Carriers Act of 1865 applied. The case arises from that part of the Kerala State which was part of the erstwhile Travancore State and it is agreed that the Carriers Act 1865 was not made applicable to that area. That Act is in force only in those areas of the Kerala State which formed part of the State of Madras prior to the commencement of operation of the States Reorganisation Act 1956. In the erstwhile Cochin State there was a State enactment which was in force and that continues to be in force in that area.

In the erstwhile Travancore State there was no Statute which governed the matter. In the absence of a Statute, rules of justice, equity and good conscience were applied to questions which arose for decision. Whenever courts had to apply such rules of justice, equity and good conscience, they were guided by the rules of English Common Law in the matter, unless it be the circumstances did not warrant the application of such rules. Possibly no reference need be made at all to the English Common Law if the question is one covered by the Carriers Act,

1865 since that was the law in force in the rest of India for nearly a century and there is no reason why that should not be considered as