VIDYA RATAN Vs. KOTA TRANSPORT CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal before us raises a question about the liability of a common carrier in respect of the loss of goods in transit delivered to him for transport.

(2.) THE appellant before us is the legal representative of one Mangilal Chopra of mangrol who had commenced the action for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1134/6/6 from Kota Transport Company Limited for non-delivery of 24 maunds and 11 seers of cotton which was consigned from Kota to Mangrol by a truck run under the management and control of the defendant company. It is common ground between the parties that the defendant company had a monopoly to ply transport vehicles within the ex-Kota State in the year 1949, and was acting as common carrier of goods. It was averred that on 5-12-1949, Messrs. Madhay Das hiralal of Kota, who were plaintiff's agents, delivered 27 maunds 11 seers and 4 chhataks of cotton valued at Rs. 1266/6/6 to the defendant company for being carried to Mangrol. This cotton was carried in a gas plant truck No. 564. Unfortunately, when the loaded truck had come near river Barod on the way it was found to have caught fire and the load was gutted. However, only 3 maunds of the cargo could be salvaged and delivered to the plaintiff. Accordingly the plaintiff demanded the value of the undelivered cotton from the defendant company, but as it did not care for the demand, the plaintiff filed the suit in the court of the munsif, Kota. The defendant admitted the fact regarding the carriage of cotton from Kota to mangrol by truck No. 564. It was also admitted that only 3 maunds of cotton could be delivered, but it was pleaded that the loss was caused on account of the goods catching fire and it was asserted that the defendant company was not at all liable for the same. A special plea was raised to the effect that one Dhanna Lal, who had approached the defendant company for transporting these goods, was warned by the employees of the defendant company that it was risky to take cotton in a gas plant truck, but as Dhanna Lal agreed that the goods be taken on his own risk and responsibility, the defendant company agreed to carry the goods. The learned munsif framed the following six issues :--

(3.) THE suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, but an appeal was taken against that decision to the District Judge, Kota, who remanded the case after framing two additional issues and directed the Munsif to decide the case afresh. The additional issues were as follows :-- (1) Whether Dhanna Lal had absolved defendant from all liability during the transport? (2) Whether plaintiff is bound by the contract of Dhanna Lal entered into with the defendant?