https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307945 A common carrier is liable for non-delivery of goods as an insurer-like bailee, so the owner need not prove negligence and the absence of privity with the consignee does not defeat the claim. That liability can be reduced only by a special contract strictly proved to have been made by the owner of the goods or by a duly authorised agent; a contract entered into by an unauthorised person is ineffective. In the absence of a governing local enactment, the ex-Kota State could apply common carrier principles on justice, equity and good conscience, including the rules reflected in the Carriers Act. The carrier therefore remained liable for the loss of the 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 A common carrier is liable for non-delivery of goods as an insurer-like bailee, so the owner need not prove negligence and the absence of privity with the consignee does not defeat the claim. That liability can be reduced only by a special contract strictly proved to have been made by the owner of the goods or by a duly authorised agent; a contract entered into by an unauthorised person is ineffective. In the absence of a governing local enactment, the ex-Kota State could apply common carrier principles on justice, equity and good conscience, including the rules reflected in the Carriers Act. The carrier therefore remained liable for the loss of the goods. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307945