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.

1. These five second appeals arise out of five different suits filed by the respective appellants, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Upper Assam District it Jorhat, claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them in consequence of the damage caused to their goods, which they consigned to the respondent company for carriage from Jagannathghat, Calcutta to the Neamatighat near Jorhat. As all the suits related to goods carried by one steamer by the respondent company and the damage to the goods occurred at the same time, and as, apparently, common questions of law and fact were involved in the disposal of the suits, they were tried together by the learned Subordinate Judge and disposed of by a common judgment, by which the learned Subordinate judge decreed each of the suits to a substantial extent.

2. The respondent company preferred appeals against the decision in the suits, to the Court of the District Judge, Upper Assam Districts, Jorhat, and the learned District Judge heard and disposed of the appeals together by a common judgment, by which he allowed the appeals and dismissed the respective suits of the present appellants, who, consequently, have preferred the present second appeals to this Court. The averments in the plaint in each case are substantially similar except for the particulars of the claims made.

3. The facts common to these cases may be briefly noticed. Each of the appellants had entrusted bales of cotton yarn and cloth for conveyance, to the respondent company on 4-9-58 at Jagannathghat, Calcutta, the respondent having undertaken to carry the same in their steamers as a common carrier. These consignments arrived at the destination, the Neamatighat near Jorhat, on 6-10-58, and when the appellants proceeded to take delivery of the goods in question, the goods were found damaged by water and accordingly an open delivery was effected on 7-10-58, and the respondent company issued damage certificates in each case indicating the nature and the extent of the damage sustained by the goods. Subsequently, claims were preferred by the defendant appellants to the respondent company, claiming damages and compensation for the loss sustained by them on account of the damage caused to their goods. These claims were repudiated by the respondent company, which resulted in the filing of the suits by the appellants which have given rise to the present appeals.

4. It is averred in the plaints in these cases that the loss was due to the damage caused on account of the respondent company's actionable wrong and negligence. The plaintiffs further denied that the consignments in question were damaged for causes beyond the control of the carrier company.

5. In their written statements, the respondent company pleaded that the goods claimed in dispute were accepted for carriage subject to the conditions of carriage found on the back of the Forwarding Note which represented the contract of carriage between the parties, that the Steamer - Martaban which was carrying the goods of the plaintiffs met with an accident enroute, and as the result of this the goods in question were damaged by water. A protest was lodged by the Master of the steamer, a copy whereof was duly sent to the respective consignees. The respondent company further claimed that the accident in question occurred on account of circumstances over which they had no control, that it was entirely fortuitous and was not due to any negligence or laches on their part. Accordingly they claimed that as per the contract of carriage and in the circumstances, no liability attached to the defendants, and the plaintiff