A carrier may not escape liability for damages by mere assertion of an act of God if negligent handling is evident; endorsements on transport documents establish ownership for claims.

1. This is plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,357/6/6 as damages. Plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying on business at Gauhati. The plaintiffs case is that under invoice No. 10691, S/R. 83 dated 12th March 1956, 250 bags of flour were despatched from Jagannath Ghat to Gauhati Bazar Ghat. Another consignment of 100 bags of flour by invoice No. 10705 S/R 98 was also booked on the same day from Jagannath Ghat for carriage to Gauhati Bazar Ghat. The plaintiff went to take delivery of the said consignments at Gauhati Bazar Ghat and found the goods of the consignments damaged. The assessment delivery was taken. The amount of damage suffered by the plaintiff was recorded in the delivery register in the office of the Steamer Company at Gauhati Bazar Ghat. As damage was caused to the consignments due to the negligence and misconduct on the part of the servants of the defendant Company which carry on the work of carrying goods on steamer, the plaintiff is entitled to the damages claimed. The plaintiff has claimed Rs. 5,750 as the damage of the consignment under invoice No. 10691 and the balance for the consignment booked under invoice No. 10705.

2. Three money suits Nos. 10, 11 and 13 of 1957 were disposed of by the court below by one judgment. Suit No. 10/57 was filed for recovery of 3450-6-0 and related to a consignment of 200 bags of sugar under invoice No. 10704 dated 12-3-56. The present appeal relates to the suit No. 11/57. Suit No. 13/57 relates to a sum of Rs. 2,613-14-6 in respect of a consignment of Arhardal booked through the defendants under invoice No. 10701 dated 12-3-56. All these consignments were booked from the same Ghat and to the same destination. We are, however, concerned in this appeal with the claim of Rs. 7,357-6-6 which was the subject - matter of Money Suit No. 11/57.

3. The trial court dismissed all the suits. Regarding the consignment under invoice No. 10705 S/R 98 the finding of the Court below is that the plaintiff has not proved the endorsement of the steamer receipt in his favour in respect of the aforesaid invoice. He has, however, dismissed the suit on the finding that the loss was caused by the act of God and the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages. The finding of the court below is assailed in appeal both on the question of endorsement of invoice No. 10705 and on the question of fact as to whether the damage was caused on account of the act of God. So far as the suit relating to the invoice No. 10705 S/R 98 is concerned we are of opinion that the plaintiff had no right to maintain the present suit as he has not succeeded in establishing the transfer of the steamer receipt in his favour.
In respect of this consignment he has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,607-6-6 as damages. In paragraph 2 of the plaint plaintiff has definitely stated that two consignments of flour were booked under two steamer receipts as noted below and delivered to the defendant carriers at Jagannath Ghat for carriage to Gauhati Bazar Ghat and all the documents of title to the said consignments were duly endorsed in favour of the plaintiff, thereby making the plaintiff entitled to take delivery of the goods or to receive compensation for non - delivery or short delivery of damages to the goods. He based his claim on endorsement in his favour of the documents of title. Shri Madanlal Bawari examined on behalf of the plaintiff admits in his evidence that the consignment under Invoice No. 10705 was booked by one Messrs. Kishanlal Suruha to se