https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307945 The High Court reversed the District Judge's decision, holding the defendant, a common carrier, liable for the loss of goods in transit. The court emphasized the absolute liability of common carriers, disregarding the defendant's claims of exemption. It clarified that privity of contract is not required for a consignee to sue a common carrier. Negligence need not be proven in such cases, and the Common Carriers Act principles were deemed applicable despite not being enforced in Rajasthan. The court rejected the argument of a special contract limiting liability, ruling in favor of the plaintiff and awarding the claimed amount for the undelivered goods. en-us Mon, 03 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 May 2023 16:11:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307945 The High Court reversed the District Judge's decision, holding the defendant, a common carrier, liable for the loss of goods in transit. The court emphasized the absolute liability of common carriers, disregarding the defendant's claims of exemption. It clarified that privity of contract is not required for a consignee to sue a common carrier. Negligence need not be proven in such cases, and the Common Carriers Act principles were deemed applicable despite not being enforced in Rajasthan. The court rejected the argument of a special contract limiting liability, ruling in favor of the plaintiff and awarding the claimed amount for the undelivered goods. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307945