A common carrier is liable for the safety of goods entrusted to him in all events, except when loss or injury arises solely from act of God or the Queens enemies or from the fault of the consignor, or inherent vice in the goods themselves.

RAMACHANDRA IYER, J.:- Ponnuswami Mudaliar, the first respondent, purchased at Koilpatti through his agent the 2nd respondent, 26 boras of karunganni cotton, and entrusted it on 5-8-1952 to the appellant who runs a lorry service for transport of goods as a common carrier, for being carried and delivered at Coimbatore. The lorry hire was to be paid at the destination. The goods were loaded in the lorry of the appellant, and it commenced its journey on the same day. While the lorry was passing near Oddanchatram, a place in the Madurai District, it was noticed that the cotton bales had caught fire, the origin and cause of which is not being ascertainable from the evidence. Efforts were made to put down the fire; but without success. The driver and D.W.1 were able to salvage two or three boras of cotton at great personal risk; the rest was entirely consumed by the fire. The appellant did not even deliver to the first respondent 1 the salvaged cotton. In these circumstances, respondents I and 2 instituted the suit, out of which the appeal arises, for recovery of a sum of Rs.6730-13-6 with subsequent interest as damages for the loss of goods. The claim was mainly rested on the plea that the appellants had failed to deliver the consignment "as agreed". There was also the plea that the loss of goods was occasioned by the gross negligence of the appellant and his servants, and that the former was further liable as a common carrier for their non-delivery. The suit was instituted in the Court of Subordinate Judge Coimbatore, on the ground that a part of cause of action arose at Coimbatore, where the cotton was agreed to be delivered and lorry charges paid.

The appellant and his driver who were impleaded as parties to the suit denied that there was any gross negligence on their part; they further stated that they had taken all reasonable care to ensure the safe transmission of the consignment, and that under the circumstances no liability would attach to them. The jurisdiction of the Sub-Court at Coimbatore to entertain the claim was denied, as according to the appellant the action was based on a tort and could be laid only in the court having jurisdiction over the place, where the loss occurred. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the contention of the appellant in part, namely, that the lorry was properly equipped and well protected, and that the fire was not due to any defect, therein and that it was not attributable to any negligence on the part of the driver. But he held that independent of the liability as bailee there was a special liability of the appellant as a common carrier for not having safely delivered the goods. Rejecting the plea as to the want of jurisdiction on the ground that a part of the cause of action arose at Coimbatore, he assessed the damages for the loss of goods in a sum of Rs.6730-13-6 and passed a decree for that amount against appellant in favour of the first respondent. The claim against the driver was dismissed.

2. In appeal Mr. K.S. Ramamurthi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, raises two contentions. The first is that even as a common carrier the appellants liability would be merely that of an ordinary bailee under Secs.151 and 152 of the Indian Contract Act, and that as in this case, it has been proved that he had taken as much care of the goods as a man of ordinary prudence would have taken of his own goods, he could not be charged for the loss of the consignment by reason of an accidental fire. The second contention is that the claim for damages based as it was on an alleged breach of duty on the Part of a common carrier, should be held to be on tort, and the cause of action could be held to arise only at the place where the accident took place, and that not being within the jurisdiction of the Coimbatore Court, the lower Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. The first contention can be shortly disposed. of. It is not disputed that the appellant is a common carrier.