Common carrier liability remained insurer-like because the Contract Act did not displace the Carriers' Act framework.

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 did not displace the special liability regime of common carriers under the Carriers' Act, 1865. Read together, the two statutes showed that the 1865 Act remained a complete code preserving the insurer-like liability of common carriers, while the 1872 Act only defined and amended specified parts of contract law, including bailment, without codifying or abolishing the separate carrier regime. Because no clear legislative language indicated an implied repeal or reduction to the ordinary bailee standard, the common-law liability of carriers remained unchanged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Indian Contract Act, 1872 altered the liability of common carriers so as to reduce it from the common-law liability of insurers to the ordinary bailee standard under the law of bailment.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Carriers' Act, 1865 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was read together. The earlier Act was treated as a complete code, preserving the special incidents of common-carrier liability, while the later Act was held to define and amend only specified parts of the law of contract. The provisions on bailment did not show an intention to codify or displace the separate body of law governing common carriers. The Act of 1872 was also construed as leaving unrepealed statutory provisions unaffected, and it would be inconsistent with that language to infer an implied abolition of the insurer-like liability of common carriers. The Court further noted that such a drastic change would have required clear legislative language, especially because it would disturb the existing balance of rights and charges under the 1865 Act.

Conclusion: The Indian Contract Act, 1872 did not alter the law applicable to common carriers. Their liability as insurers remained unaffected, and the appeal failed.

---