NATH BROS. EXIM INTERNATIONAL LTD. versus BEST ROADWAYS LTD.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 538 · Decided: 27-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NATH BROS. EXIM INTERNATIONAL LTD. 
v. 
BEST ROADWAYS LTD. 
MARCH 27, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Carriers Act, 1865-Ss. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9-Liability of Common 
Carrier-Goods' booked with Common Carrier at Owner's Risk for trans-
portation-Consignment getting completely destroyed by .fire while being 
C 
stored in .Respondent's warehouse-Carrier to take as much care as he would 
have taken of his awn goods-Liable for damage or loss caused on account 
of his own negligence or criminal Act or that of his agent-Even a special 
contract under Sec. 6 cannot absolve the common carrier. 
Words & Phrases-Owner's risk-Meaning of-In the context of Carri-
D 
ers Act, 1865. 
E 
F 
Appellant booked certain goods with. the Respondent at "Owner's 
Risk" for transportation from Noida (UP) to Bombay to be delivered to J & 
·Co., the clearing agents of the appellant. Since the goods failed to reach 
their destination, the appella~t complained to the Respondent. The Re-
spondent informed that the goods while being stored at Bhiwandi were 
completely destroyed by fire. The appellant filed a claim petition before the 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging deficiency in 
service. The National Commission dismissed the claim of the Appellant 
holding the Respondent not liable as it had taken all possible care expected 
of a carrier. Hence, this Appeal. 
It was contended for the Appellant that the Respondent being a 
'Carrier' within the meaning of Carriers Act, 1865 is liable for non-
delivery of goods to the consignee at his destination; that the non-delivery is 
indicative of negligence, and the National Commission was not justified in 
G 
rejecting the claim petition on the ground that goods were destroyed by 
fire; that the goods entrusted for delivery to Ms. J. & Co., at Bombay could 
not have been diverted to Bhiwandi or stored there; that since the goods 
were stored adjacent to another godown in which highly combustible 
articles were kept; thus, the Respondent was clearly negligent; and that the 
H 
goods were diverted at the instance of Mis J. & Co. 
538 
-
-
,. 
--
NATH BROS. EXIM INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. BEST ROADWAYS LTD. 539 
It was contended for the Respondent that since the goods were 
A 
booked at "Owner's Risk", it was not liable for their loss; that since the 
goods were directed to be unloaded at Bhiwandi by the instructions of the 
consignee, it could not be said that the Respondent was negligent. 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the National Con-
sumer Disputes Redressal Comn'lission, the Court 
B 
' 
HELD : 1.1. The liability of carrier to whom the goods are entrusted 
for carriage is that of an insurer and is absolute in terms, in the sense that 
the carrier has to deliver the goods safely, undamaged and without loss at 
the destination, indicated by the consignor. So long as the goods are in the 
custody of the carrier, it is the duty of the carrier to take due care as he 
would have taken for his own goods and he would be liable if any loss or 
damage was caused to the goods on account· of his own negligence or 
c~iminal act or that of his agents and servants. [553-A-B] 
1.2. The provisions of Section 151 and 152 of the Indian contract Act, 
1872, in effect, embody the English Common Law Rule as to the liability of 
bailee. Under the English Common Law Rule, the measure of care required 
of the person to whom the goods were bailed, was the same, as a man of 
ordinary prudence would take of his own goods. In other words, it was a 
mere matter of negligence on which the liability was hounded. If a person 
was negligent and did not take as much care she would have taken of his 
own goods, he would be liable in damages. [546-B-E] 
Irrawaddy Flotilla Co. Ltd. v. Bugwandass, (1891) 18 lA 121, : ILR 
(1891) 18 Cal. 620, referred to. 
1.3. It is true that Section 158 of the Indian Contract Act speaks of 
bailment of the goods for being carried on behalf of the bailor, but it is also 
to be noticed that the bailment spoken of in that section in gratuitous as it 
c 
D 
E 
F 
is specifically provided that "the bailee is to receive no remuneration. 
That apart, the definition of 'bailment' as set out in section 148 of the 
Indian Contract Act may be said to be wide enough so as to cover 
G 
'entrustment of good' to a carrier for carriage. With the enactment of 
Carriers Act, 1865, the extent of liability of the carrier has to be found in 
that Act [548-B-C] 
Konda Rm. Eswara

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.