The carrier is liable for damage caused by neglect or fraud, unless the loss is caused by an act of God, and must prove reasonable care to be exonerated from liability.

SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan (plaintiff-appellant) against the judgment and decree dated 11-5-1982 passed by the Dist. Judge, Dungarpur in Appeal No. 38/79 by which he dismissed the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff and upheld the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1979 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dungarpur by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the respondents-defendants.

( 2 ) IT arises in the following circumstances:that the State of Rajasthan (Plaintiff-appellant) filed a civil suit against the defendants-respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Dungarpur on 1-7-75 stating that the defendant No. 1 was registered firm and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were its partners and they were dealing in transport business. (II) That the plaintiff-appellant booked a truck of the defendants for supplying pipes from Dungarpur to place Anjana in Dist. Banswara on 10-7-72 and Bilty of booking is numbered 1095 dated 10-7-72. The number of the truck which was carrying the pipes was RJJ 451. The pipes were loaded on the truck. When the truck was on the way towards Anjana, an accident took place and the truck capsized because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck as a result of which some goods loaded in the truck were damaged, meaning thereby that some pipes of the plaintiff-appellant were got damaged. The defendants-respondents delivered sound pipes at Anjana, but damaged pipes were transported back to Dungarpur and stacked at the godown of the defendants-respondents. It was duty of the defendants-respondents as per provisions of Carriers Act, 1865 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1865) that the goods which were loaded in the truck of the defendants-respondents should have been allowed to reach safely and in good condition at destination and since pipes were got damaged, therefore, the defendants-respondents were liable for that damage caused to the plaintiff-appellant because of the accident.

( 3 ) A notice under Section 10 of the Act of 1865 was also given by the plaintiff-appellant to the defendants-respondents. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the cost of damaged pipes was assessed at Rs. 6182 and thus, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of this amount against the defendants-respondents.

( 4 ) THE suit of the plaintiff-appellant was contested by the defendants-respondents by filing a written statement on 1-12-75 admitting that there truck was booked by the plaintiff-appellant on 10-7-72 through Bilty, but the fact that the truck capsized because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck was denied, but on the contrary it was averred that because of bursting of the front wheel, the truck in question capsized. It was further stated that in the truck, one Mansoor Khan a man of the plaintiff-appellant was also sitting at the time when the truck capsized. Hence, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and thus, the defendants-respondents are not liable for the damage caused to some pipes belonging to the plaintiff-appellant and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant be dismissed.

( 5 ) ON the pleading of the parties, the learned Civil Judge framed following issues on 4-5-76 : (Vernacular matter omitted - Ed)

( 6 ) IN the trial, four witnesses were produced on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant and four witnesses were produced on behalf of the defendants-respondents and some documents were got exhibited.

( 7 ) THE learned Civil Judge through his judgment and order dated 28-7-79 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant and gave the findings in following manner : on ISSUE NO. 1i) The incident took place because of sudden bursting of the tyre as a result of which the truck overturned, therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver and similarly there was no responsibility of the owner of the truck and furthermore he treated