Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)Section 9 in The Carriers Act, 1865 [Entire Act]
Economic Roadways Corporation, ... vs Soundararaja Mills Limited, Rep By Its ... on 2 February, 2001
15. Needless to say, as it is well settled position of law that the
transporter under the provision of Carrier Act and Indian Contract Act( Provision
regarding Bailments) is duty bound to preserve the goods in safe custody when they
are under its control. The transporter is also duty bound to transport the goods safely
and is not suppose to act negligently in dealing or transporting the goods. It is also
well settled position of law that the burden of proving absence of negligence on the
part of the transporter is upon the transporter itself and not upon the consignor in
terms of Section 9 of Carrier Act,1865, meaning thereby that negligence is to be
presumed on the part of the carrier unless he proves otherwise. From the above
mentioned legal position, it is clear that even if it is assumed that the goods were sent
at "Owner Risk", the owner is still duty bound to transport it safely to avoid any
liability as held in 2001(3) ICC 473(Mad) titled as Economic Roadways Corporation,
Madras Vs. Soundararaja Mills Ltd. Dindigul & Anr. In this judgment it is also held
that a public carrier is not entitled to contend that it transported goods at "Owner
Risk"
1