1982 (10) TMI 223 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of a carrier for loss of goods entrusted to them.
2. Extent of liability of a common carrier in India.
3. Exception to absolute liability of carrier - special contract and act of God.
4. Interpretation of exclusion clause in a special contract limiting liability for loss or damage.

Analysis:

1. Liability of a Carrier:
The case involved a firm acting as a carrier for goods entrusted to them by the Plaintiff. The goods were lost in a fire at the Defendant's premises, leading to non-delivery. The Defendant argued that the fire was caused by a short circuit and not due to negligence, therefore claiming they were not liable for the loss. However, the court held that as a carrier, the Defendant was responsible for the loss of goods, even if not due to negligence, based on the concept that carriers are insurers of goods they transport.

2. Extent of Liability of a Common Carrier:
The judgment discussed the liability of a common carrier in India, stating that it is more extensive than that of a bailee under the Indian Contract Act. A common carrier is considered an insurer of goods and is answerable for their loss, except in cases of act of God or King's enemies. The court referred to a previous judgment highlighting the absolute liability of common carriers and the distinction between the liability of carriers under English Common Law and Roman Law.

3. Exception to Absolute Liability:
The absolute liability of a carrier is subject to two exceptions - special contract and act of God. The court clarified that not every inevitable accident can be considered an act of God. The judgment emphasized that only those acts resulting from natural causes, not human agency, can be categorized as acts of God. In this case, the fire at the Defendant's premises was not deemed an act of God, and thus, the carrier could not escape absolute liability.

4. Interpretation of Exclusion Clause in Special Contract:
The Defendant attempted to rely on an exclusion clause in the special contract, which exempted liability for loss due to fire, among other things, provided reasonable precautions were taken. However, the court found that the Defendant had not taken any precautions against fire, such as having fire extinguishers or a watchman on the premises. Therefore, the exclusion clause could not be invoked, and the Defendant was held liable for the loss of goods. The court upheld the trial court's decree in favor of the Plaintiff.

In conclusion, the appeal challenging the decree for damages granted to the Plaintiff was dismissed, and the Defendant was held liable for the loss of goods due to the fire at their premises, as carriers are considered insurers of goods they transport.