KERALA TRANSPORT CO Vs. KUNNATH TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, a firm engaged in the business of sale of goods, challenges in this appeal a decree for damages granted to the plaintiff for loss of goods of the plaintiff entrusted to the defendant at Trichur as a carrier to be transported to Willingdon Island and. delivered there. The plaintiff firm booked 15 cases of banians to self on 14-12-1974 at Trichur and paid the lorry; charges. The destination was Willingdon Island. But the office at the Willingdon Island did not deliver the goods and the plaintiff was informed that the goods had been lost by fire. The fire was on 19-12-1974, five days of the consignment of the goods. According to the defendant the goods were lost by fire and such fire was caused by short circuit of electric wires. That was said to be not on account of negligence or carelessness of the defendant and hence the defendant urged that he was not liable. The facts are more or less admitted and on these facts the Trial Court found that the defendant as carrier must answer for the loss of the goods. Accordingly a decree was granted for the value of such goods.

(2.) The entrustment of the goods, arrival of the goods at Willingdon Island, the fire that broke out in the premises of the defendant at Willingdon Island at 3 A. M. on 19-12-1974, the loss of the goods and consequently the non delivery are all admitted in this case. If the defendant has failed to deliver the goods not on account of any negligence or carelessness, would the defendant be liable is the question which naturally arises for consideration. If the defendant was merely a bailee of goods he would not be liable to answer as an insurer. But the liability of a carrier in India, as in England, is more extensive and that liability is that of an insurer. We do not want to go into this question in detail because we are in agreement with the view expressed by one of us in R. R. N. Ramalinga v. Narayana, AIR 1971 Kerala 197 where there has been a very detailed consideration of this question. We refer to Para.11 to 15 of that judgment:

(3.) The absolute liability of the carrier is subject to two exceptions. One of them is any special contract that the carrier may choose to enter into with the customer and the other is act of God. That act of God does not take in any and every inevitable accident has been indicated in that decision. It is only those acts which can be traced to natural causes as opposed to human agency that can be said to be acts of God was held in the case. If so the fire that took place in the godown cannot be said to be an act of God and that cannot therefore be an answer to the claim for absolute liability.