SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(Mad) 434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice T. Venkatadri
Messrs. Konda Rm. Eswara Iyer & Sons, Madurai through one of its partners K.E. Nagendra Iyer
Versus
Messrs. Madras-Bangalore Transport Co. at Madurai by its branch Manager
C.R.P. No. 937 of 1961.
Decided On : 19 November 1963

Advocates:
O. V. Natesan, for Petitioner.
P. C. Parthasarathi and P. S. Raman, for Respondents.

Delivery of consigned goods to the proper person by the carriers out of their obligation.

Headnote:Carriers - Liability of common carriers-Obligation of the carriers to deliver to goods consigned to proper person.

       

Order;

The plaintiff filed this Civil Revision Petition against the dismissal of a suit for damages against the Madras-Bangalore Transport Co., represented by its branch Manager at Madurai.

The short facts are the plaintiff booked a parcel with the first defendant on 28th November, 1958 containing sarees to the value of Rs. 1,566-12 nP. to be delivered to the second defendant at Bombay. The plaintiff obtained the parcel receipt from the first defendant and sent it to the second defendant along with the invoice by ordinary post. But due to mishap the second defendant did not receive either the parcel receipt or the invoice. Subsequently the plaintiff’s agent was informed that goods were delivered. Immediately the plaintiff sent a registered notice to the first defendant asking him to give the details of the delivery but no reply was sent to him. Therefore the plaintiff filed the present suit to recover damages against the first defendant. He also impleaded the second defendant as a party to the suit.

The defence to the suit is that it is true that the plaintiff booked a parcel oh 28th November, 1958 and the defendants delivered to the plaintiff’s consignee in the month of December, 1958. They did not deliver the goods to a wrong person. The second defendant filed a written statement that he did not receive the parcel way bill and the original invoice and he was not aware of the consignment of the goods till he was informed by the plaintiff’s agent.

On these pleadings the parties went to trial. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit gave a finding that the goods were not delivered to the second defendant but they were delivered to a wrong person because of the neglignece of the plaintiff in not sending the consignment receipt by registered post. Therefore, he dismissed the suit. It is against this dismissal of the suit that the plaintiff filed the present Revision Petition.

This is a case of importance to the rights of carriers. It is also important with respect to their obligations and the rights of the public. There is no doubt that the Madras-Bangalore Transport is a common carrier and it satisfies the description of a common carrier as observed by Destor Story in his Bailments in section 495 in the following words:

“To bring a person within the description of a common carrier he must exercise it as a public employment ; he must undertake to carry goods for persons generally, and he must hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for hire as a business, not as a casual occupation pro vac vice. A common carrier has, therefore, been defined to be one who undertakes for hire or reward to transport the goods of such as choose to employ him from place to place.”

The duties of common carrier of goods are:

(i) to receive for carriage all goods offered, provided, he has convenience to carry them and the goods are of a proper kind and the employer is ready and willing to pay the proper and reasonable hire ; (ii) to carry for a reasonable reward and to deliver the goods within a reasonable time ; and (iii) to insure their safety during the carriage and until delivery the acts of God and the enemies of the State are only excepted.

Chief Justice Wilde observed in Richards v. L.B. and S.C. Ry. Co.1:

“The duty of common carriers by the common law, is perfectly well understood ; it is a warranty safely and securely to carry ; whether they be guilty of negligence or not is immaterial ; the warranty is broken by the non-conveyance or non-delivery of goods entrusted to them.”

The liability of a common carrier is not limited only to negligence. In the case of loss or damage he cannot plead that he has exercised all reasonable diligence and care. He must be liable in spite of taking all due care and precautions. As Chief Justice Hale observed in Morse v. Slue2, “And if a carrier be robbed by a hundred men, he is never the more excused” . Thus the general principle of the common law is a common carrier is insurer of goods
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top