1910 (7) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Court holds carriers liable for goods loss due to negligence, rejects exemption claims, emphasizes Carriers Act provisions

The court held the carriers liable for the loss of goods due to negligence, rejecting the carriers' exemption claims based on contractual agreements. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Liability of common carriers for loss of goods.2. Applicability of special contracts limiting liability.3. Interpretation of the Carriers Act of 1865.4. Effect of the bill of lading and other contractual agreements.5. Rights of subrogation for insurance companies.6. Validity of indemnity clauses in contracts.7. Calculation and proof of damages.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Liability of common carriers for loss of goods:The case involves a suit against common carriers to recover Rs. 27,915 for 1,000 bales of jute lost due to a fire. The plaintiffs, owners of the goods and an insurance company, allege that the loss was caused by the negligence or criminal acts of the carriers or their agents. The court examined the relative rights and liabilities of common carriers and those for whom they carry, governed by English Common Law as modified by the Carriers Act of 1865. The Act imposes liability on common carriers for losses arising from negligence or criminal acts of the carrier or any of his agents or servants.2. Applicability of special contracts limiting liability:The carriers contended that they were exempt from liability due to the terms of a contract between the owners and the carriers and the insurance policy. The court analyzed the special contracts, including a bill of lading and an agreement dated 23rd May 1906, which purportedly limited the carriers' liability. The court found that the bill of lading and the agreement did not exempt the carriers from liability for losses arising from negligence or criminal acts.3. Interpretation of the Carriers Act of 1865:Sections 6, 8, and 9 of the Carriers Act of 1865 were pivotal in this case. Section 6 states that the liability of any common carrier for the loss of or damage to any property delivered to him to be carried shall not be limited by any public notice. Section 8 asserts that every common carrier shall be liable for loss or damage arising from negligence or criminal acts. Section 9 relieves the plaintiff from proving negligence or criminal acts in such suits. The court concluded that these sections impose a statutory prohibition against exempting a carrier from liability for losses due to negligence or criminal acts.4. Effect of the bill of lading and other contractual agreements:The bill of lading issued on 25th February 1908, stated that the jute was shipped subject to certain conditions, including a clause that the company would not be liable for loss or damage unless it arose from negligence or criminal acts. The court found that this clause did not exempt the carriers from liability for negligence. Additionally, an agreement dated 23rd May 1906, between the Manufacturing Company and the steamer companies, including the carriers, was analyzed. The court held that this agreement did not apply to the jute in question and did not exempt the carriers from liability for negligence or criminal acts.5. Rights of subrogation for insurance companies:The insurance company paid the Manufacturing Company Rs. 27,915 under the policy and claimed this amount from the carriers by right of subrogation. The court clarified that the insurance company claimed by way of subrogation and not of assignment, meaning they had no right to sue in their own name. The suit should have been brought in the name of the Manufacturing Company. The court stated that any matter that could be pleaded against the Manufacturing Company would be an effective answer, even if the purpose of the suit was to benefit the insurance company.6. Validity of indemnity clauses in contracts:Clause 10 of the agreement dated 23rd May 1906, provided that the Manufacturing Company would indemnify the steamer companies against all claims insurable under an ordinary F.P.A. policy. The court held that this clause did not extend to losses arising from negligence or criminal acts. The court emphasized that indemnity clauses in contracts should be construed strictly and should not exempt carriers from statutory liabilities unless explicitly stated.7. Calculation and proof of damages:The court noted a difficulty in awarding damages due to the lack of proper proof. It was probable that both sides accepted the amount paid under the policy as correctly representing the damages. However, if they could not agree, an inquiry would be necessary. The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs should have proved the amount of damages at the hearing but decided not to dismiss the suit due to this default.Conclusion:The court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the suit, and held the carriers liable for the loss arising from negligence. The court also addressed the procedural error in the suit being brought by the insurance company and the Manufacturing Company, emphasizing the correct legal principles of subrogation. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the exact amount of damages if the parties could not agree.