When carrier of goods should not be held guilty for unjust enrichment?

The learned counsel for the appellant urged that both the Courts below found that it was a case of mis-delivery. Hence, it would amount to non-delivery. However, in the instant case it is established and admitted case of the parties that the consignment was delivered by the carrier to the consignee, viz. Binod Steels Ltd., Indore. Even plaintiff s case is that the consignment was delivered to Binod Steels Ltd., Indore. The only grievance is that the consignment was delivered against the written instruction of the consignor that without obtaining lorry receiptthe defendant should not have delivered the consignment and since this was done against the written instructions of the consignor it amounted to breach of contract, hence damage could be awarded against the defendant. It is not the case of recovery of damage on the ground of breach of contract. At the most it can be said to be negligence of the Carrier in not obtaining lorry receipt before giv-ing delivery to the consignee. But it is nobody's case that the consignment was delivered to any party other than Binod Steels Ltd. On the other hand, admitted case is that the consignment was delivered to Binod Steels Ltd. Indore. In these circumstances it is neither a case of mis-delivery nor non-delivery of the goods. If it is so then the liability of the carrier cannot be enforced in favour of the appellant. The defendant being the carrier cannot be held guilty of unjust enrichment. The carrier has not misappropriated the goods nor has delivered it to some one else and misappropriated the price thereof. On the other hand, the consignment was received by the consignee who appropriated it. Consequently the doctrine of "unjust enrichment" can be applied against Binod Steels Ltd., Indore and not against the respondent.

Gujarat High Court

Saurashtra Ceramic Ind. And Anr. vs Sadhana Transport Co. on 26 February, 1998

Equivalent citations: I (2001) ACC 466, 2000 ACJ 24, AIR 1998 Guj 178, (1998) 3 GLR 97

Bench: D Srivastava

Print Page

Whether Goods carriers can disown their liability for payment of damages?

Goods carriers can't disown their liability

The term "at owner's risk" appears in every goods receipt or consignment note issued by the transporters to whom the goods are entrusted by traders, manufacturers or businessmen for delivery to their dealers or customers. Does this term completely exonerate the transport company from its liability if the goods so consigned are not delivered, late delivered or delivered in a damaged condition? Transporters say so and invariably advance this plea if any action is taken against them. Courts too have struggled hard to reconcile the situation and even the Supreme Court had to go into this baffling question on several occasions.

Rungta Brothers had booked a consignment of Kota Stones with Vijay Goods Transport Company at Kota to be delivered at Bharuch in Gujarat. The goods dispatched were not delivered at the destination. In their complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, it was pleaded that the complainant had no right to claim damages as the goods receipt had clearly stipulated the goods were transported on the responsibility of the complainant. The district forum dismissed the complaint.

Print Page

Leading judgment on liability of carrier of goods under Indian law

In Patel Roadways Limited v. Birla Yamaha Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 1461, Supreme Court held that the liability of a carrier in India is like that of an insurer and is an absolute liability subject to an Act of God and a special contract which the carrier may choose to enter with a customer. In this regard, the Court referred to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, which specifically provides that in case of claim of damage or loss to or deterioration of goods entrusted to a carrier, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish negligence. It was further held that even assuming that the general principle in cases of tortuous liability is that of the party who alleges negligence against the other must prove the same, the said principle has no application to cover the case under the Carriers Act.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment Pronounced on: 23.11.2010

CS(OS) No. 1468/2001

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

V

M/S MUKESH TEMPO SERVICE (CARRIER)

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

Citation: 2011IAD(Delhi)294, (2011)ILR 1Delhi801, (2011)161PLR36

Print Page