Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VEKATESH, J.
M/s. BIC Logistics Ltd., Kilpauk - Appellant
Versus
M/s.Rane (Madras) Ltd., rep.by Power Agent/Subrogee United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Another - Respondent
S.A.Nos. 249 & 250 of 2014
Decided On : 06-04-2022
Carriers Act - Liability for loss of consignment - Section 8 and 9 of the Carriers Act 1865 - The judgment discusses the liability of the carrier for the loss of consignment and the application of Sections 8 and 9 of the Carriers Act 1865. The court emphasizes the duty of the carrier to take care of the consignment and the burden of proof imposed on the carrier to prove that the loss or damage was not caused due to their negligence or criminal act. The judgment highlights the strict liability of the carrier and the requirement for the carrier to compensate for the loss or damage unless they can prove otherwise.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st plaintiff entrusted a consignment of automobile components to the 1st defendant for safe carriage and delivery. The consignment was lost during transit, and the 1st plaintiff sought recovery of the amount from the 1st defendant. The trial Court found that the loss was due to robbery and held the plaintiff not entitled to the suit claim. The lower Appellate Court, however, decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court found no negligence on the part of the carrier and held the plaintiff not entitled to the suit claim. The lower Appellate Court, without considering the findings of the trial Court, straightaway held the carrier liable to compensate for the loss. The High Court set aside the judgment and remanded the matter back to the lower Appellate Court for re-consideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the carrier for the loss of consignment, the application of Sections 8 and 9 of the Carriers Act 1865, and the proper consideration of evidence and findings by the lower Appellate Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The carrier has a duty to take care of the consignment and is strictly liable for any loss or damage unless they can prove that it was not due to their negligence or criminal act. The burden of proof is on the carrier to discharge this duty. The lower Appellate Court must consider the evidence and provide specific reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the trial Court.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and remanded the matter back for re-consideration, emphasizing the need for proper appreciation of evidence and specific reasons for disagreeing with the trial Court's findings.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in S.A.No.249 of 2014: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.08.2013 of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.383 of 2009 thereby dismissing the appeal and also dismissing the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2008 of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.3143 of 2006.
Prayer in S.A.No.250 of 2014: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.08.2013 of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.416 of 2009 thereby dismissing the appeal and also dismissing the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2008 of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.3143 of 2006.)
Common Judgment:
The 1st defendant is the appellant in both the second appeals.
2. The 1st plaintiff despatched their consignment of automobile components at Pondicherry and it was entrusted to the 1st defendant, who is the carrier, for safe carriage and delivery at Pune. The goods were delivered to the carrier on 14.03.2003.
3. The grievance of the 1st plaintiff is that the 1st defendant committed breach and failed to deliver the consignment that was entrusted to the carrier and thereby, the 1st plaintiff suffered a pecuniary loss of a sum of Rs.4,93,082.93.
4. The 1st plaintiff had insured the consignment with the 2nd plaintiff under the Marine policy of insurance. The 1st plaintiff also executed a letter of subrogation in favour of the 2nd plaintiff after receiving the policy amount towards the loss suffered by them. Since the amount towards the loss of consignment was not settled inspite of the claim letter dated 01.02.2006, the suit was filed seeking for the relief of recovery of amount from the 1st defendant to the tune of Rs.4,93,082.93 with interest.
5. The 1st defendant filed a written statement and took a stand that the consignment that was taken by the carrier was intercepted in the National highways and a criminal act of robbery took place whereby the lorry was hijacked and the entire consignment was looted. A complaint was also lodged before the concerned Police Station and an FIR came to be registered by the Neelamangala Police Station in Crime No.183 of 2003 for an offence under Section 392 of IPC. The 1st defendant took a further stand that the loss of consignment was not due to any criminal act on the part of the carrier or due to any negligence on the part of the carrier and the consignment was lost only due to robbery which must be considered as an act committed by enemies of State. Thereby, the 1st defendant denied their liability.
6. The 1st defendant also took a stand that the suit is barred by limitation and further it was stated that there was no territorial jurisdiction for filing the suit at City Civil Court, Chennai.
7. The trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, gave a categoric finding to the effect that the 1st defendant has established that there was no negligence on their part and the loss of consignment had taken place only due to the robbery committed by miscreants and accordingly, the plaintiff was held not to be entitled for the suit claim. However, the trial Court based on the concession given by the counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st defendant directed the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards the suit claim.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, 1st defendant filed A.S.No.383 of 2009 on the ground that they are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and challenged the decree passed by the trial Court to the extent to which the trial Court had directed the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also filed an appeal in A.S.No.416 of 2009 being aggrieved by the fact that the trial Court rejected the entire claim and the amount of Rs.
The carrier is strictly liable for the loss of consignment unless they can prove that it was not due to their negligence or criminal act, as per Sections 8 and 9 of the Carriers Act 1865.
A common carrier is liable for damages only if caused by negligence or criminal acts; the presumption of negligence can be rebutted by evidence showing that damage was due to an accidental event.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the carrier to take necessary care and caution to safeguard consignment goods, as outlined in the Carriers Act and Marine Insurance ....
The carrier is strictly liable for loss of goods in transit, and once loss is established, the burden shifts to the carrier to disprove negligence.
A common carrier is not strictly liable for transit loss unless it is proven that the loss arose from the negligence or criminal act of the carrier, and a consignor cannot validly subrogate rights to....
The insurer can sue a common carrier for damages even without notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act if the claim arises from loss or injury to goods.
The carrier's liability for damages cannot be limited by an expired agreement, and negligence on the part of the carrier establishes full liability for the loss.
Common carriers are strictly liable for losses unless they can prove an excepted peril; the burden of proof is on the carrier to demonstrate that due diligence was exercised.
The Carrier's liability for the loss, damage, or non-delivery of goods entrusted to it is not limited or affected by any public notice unless there is a special contract signed by the owner of the pr....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
