RADHAKRISHNAN REDDIAR Vs. VENKATESAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of an action by the first respondent herein against the owner of a bus, the first defendant and the conductor of the bus, the second defendant, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 303-37, being the value of a bag of betel-nuts which was lost by the negligence of the first defendant and his servant, while he was travelling in his bus from Panruti to Tirukoilur. It is in record that the first respondent herein paid extra charges for his luggage to be carried to his destination. The luggage was handed oven' to the conductor who stowed it on the top of the bus. On arriving at the destination, the first respondent found' his baggage missing and immediately reported it to the conductor, and afterwards also to the owner of the bus. The defendants attempted to trace the baggage, but subsequently they disowned their liability. According to them, it was the duty of the passenger to take care of his luggage, and it was due to his carelessness and negligence that the luggage was lost. The first respondent herein filed the present suit for recovery of the value of the baggage of betel nuts. The learned District Munsif held that the first defendant was a common carrier, and, as such, he was liable Under Section 8 of the Carriers act, III of 1865, which provide that every common carrier is liable to the owner for loss of, or damages to, any property delivered to such carrier to be carried, where such loss or damage has arisen from the negligence or criminal act of the carrier or any of his agents or servants. The learned District Munsif decreed the suit as prayed for. It is against this judgment and decree, the first defendant, the owner of the bus, has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner seriously contended before me that his client is not liable for the loss. According to him, the bus is intended only to carry passengers, and it is, therefore, the duty of the passenger to take care of his luggage, while travailing in the bus, and that therefore, he should not be held liable or responsible for the passenger's luggage, inasmuch as there is no privity of contract between the passenger and the bus owner that he would safely deliver the luggage at the destination.

(3.) WHAT are the dirties of a public carrier is now the Question for consideration. The Indian Carriers Act presumes the general liability of common carriers for the safe conveyance and due delivery of goods delivered to them. It makes no distinction between personal luggage and other goods of merchandise. The Act is intended to protect both carriers as well as the persons who employ them. On the one hand there is the extraordinary severity of the general law as to the carriers. On the other hand, there is the extreme leniency and one sidedness of the terms which carriers secured to themselves by special contract-terms which are often submitted to by the customer without his being aware of what ha is doing, it also imposes liability on the carriers in case of loss or damage due to their negligence or criminal act or any of their agents or servants.