AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.C. Pathak, J.—This second appeal by the plaintiffs was admitted on the following substantial question of law:
Whether irrespective of the fact that defendants 1 and 2 were not the owners of the truck, they are liable for the damages under the Carriers of Goods Act ?
Facts relevant for decision of the question in the appeal are that the plaintiffs entrusted 60 bags of grains to the respondents for transportation from Baiji in Tahsil Remetara to Raipur. It was alleged that respondents No. 1 and 2, father and son, constitute a joint Hindu family and carry on transport business. Therefore, their truck MPS 6481, nominally recorded in the name of respondent No. 2, while respondent No. 3 was in their employment as driver. They charged Rs. 180/- at the rate of 3 per bag as hire charges. It is alleged that on way, while crossing the bridge over river near Simga, the truck dashed against railings of the bridge and fell into the river. The plaintiffs also suffered injuries Three or four days after the incident, only 46 bags of grains could be retrieved. Though the grains were in fact the gunny bags were in damaged condition. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed damages for the remaining grains 22.16 quintals amounting to Rs. 3,627.00 paise in round figure Rs. 3,500/-.
All the defendants filed a joint written statement. They submitted that all truck owners of Bemetara had formed an association and business of transport is carried in respect of such orders as are allocated by the said association. On 31-5-1976, the said association had received an order from the plaintiffs to transport grains through truck MPS 6481 to Raipur. Hire charges were also recovered by the association. The defendants, however, admitted that even after taking all precautions, the brake of truck gave way and the truck fell into the river. According to them, the entire goods of the plaintiffs were returned to them by the police.
The learned trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal, by respondents No. 1 and 2, the decree against them was set aside on a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were owners of the truck. Hence this appeal.
The question for decision is whether it is essential to prove the ownership of the truck with the defendants before the liability can be fastened on them under the Carriers Act, 1865. The word ''common carrier'' is defined u/s 2 of Carriers Act as under:
''common carrier'' denotes a person, other than the Government, engaged in the business of transporting for hire property from place to place, by land or inland navigation, for all persons indiscriminately;
The aforesaid definition shows that unlike its meaning in common parlance, it denotes a person engaged in the business of transporting for hire property from place to place. In other words person having offices and agents all over the country, and being engaged in the business of transporting for hire goods from place to place come under the definition of common carrier. Analysis of the definition does not show that the person concerned should also be an owner of the motor vehicle used for transporting the goods. It is well known that in order to secure a permit for public carrier under the Motor Vehicles Act, ownership of a vehicle is not a condition precedent. What is relevant is possession of a vehicle and a person aspiring for a permit need not be its owner. I am, therefore, of the opinion that in order that a person may be treated as carrier within the meaning of the aforesaid Act, it is not essential that the person concerned should necessarily he owner of the vehicle also.
Apart from what is stated above, there is ample evidence on record to show that respondent No. 1 was engaged in transporting goods for hire. This is clear from the statement of respondent Harbanslal as (DW 2), who admitted that one truck bearing No. 6004 is in the name of his son, while No. 8681 is in the name of younger brother Haveliram. They all live together and they have a shop near the motor stand where these trucks are kept. He looks after that shop and executes business entrusted to him by the transport operators'' association.
The plaintiffs'' have also examined their witnesses. They also prove that respondent No. 1 is engaged in transporting goods on hire. In R.R.N. Ramalinga Nadar Vs. V. Narayana Reddiar, it was held that a person who publicly holds himself out to carry goods for any one who asks him as a common carrier. The lower appeal Court has not given a finding to the contrary. The decree against respondents 1 and 2 was set aside on the sole finding that the year not proved to be the owners. Ownership of a vehicle is not a sine qua non to fasten liability on a carrier.
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appeal Court is set aside and instead that of the trial Court is restored with costs of this Court as also that of the lower appeal Court. Counsel''s fee Rs. 100/- if certified.