HUSSAINBHAI MULLA FIDA HUSSAIN Vs. MOTILAL NATHULAL
LAWS(BOM)-1962-7-2
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: NAGPUR)
Decided on July 24,1962

HUSSAINBHAI MULLA FIDA HUSSAIN Appellant
VERSUS
MOTILAL NATHULAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LANE V. COTTON [REFERRED TO]
BRETHERTON V. WOOD [REFERRED TO]
JOHNSON V. MIDLAND RY.CO. [REFERRED TO]
SCAIFE V. FARRANT [REFERRED TO]
BALFAST ROPEWORK CO. V. BUSHELL [REFERRED TO]
BENETT V. PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL STEAM BOAT CO. [REFERRED TO]
MOOLJEE SICKA AND CO. V. NARHARSINGH [REFERRED TO]
KALASAMI NADAR V. PONNUSWAMI MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYALAL V. JEROME D'COSTA [REFERRED TO]
RIVER STEAM NAVIGATION CO. V. SYAM SUNDER TEA CO.LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SHRIPAD V. SHIVRAM [REFERRED TO]
SATTAPPA GURUSATTAPPA V. MAHOMEDSAHEB APPALAL KAZI [REFERRED TO]
RIVER STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY LIMITED VS. SHYAM SUNDER TEA COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR SINGH VS. NARAIN TEWARI [REFERRED TO]
INDIA GENERAL NAVIGATION AND RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED VS. DEKHARI TEA COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SHAH JUGALDAS AMRITLAL VS. SHAH HARILAL TALAKCHAND [LAWS(GJH)-1984-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HARILAL TALAKCHAND [LAWS(GJH)-2000-1-12] [REFERRED]
SOUTHERN CARRIERS CORPORATION VS. SHAHA BROTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-1997-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL ROADWAYS VS. SESHASAYEE INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2004-8-106] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. P B SALUNKE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-6-63] [REFERRED TO]
BRAKES INDIA LTD VS. BIC LOGISTICS LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL ROADWAYS LIMITED VS. BIRLA YAMAHA LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2000-3-170] [REFERRED TO]
R R N RAMALINGA NADAR VS. V NARAYANA REDDIAR [LAWS(KER)-1970-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH EASTERN CARRYING CORPORATION VS. JAY JITENDRA SCREEN PRINTERY & 1 ANR [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-384] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. VS. BOMBAY ANDHRA TRANSPORT CORP. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-346] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Patel, J. - (1.)The question in this case is whether the respondents were common carriers and liable as such in respect of the goods belonging to the plaintiff and which they were carrying from Nagpur to Pusad. The goods were despatched on 21st April 1949 from Nagpur and were to be delivered to one Vinayakrao Patil of Pusad. The plaintiff alleged that he had expressly declared the value and the description of the goods at the time of delivery to the defendants. On the way the goods were burnt to ashes and hence the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the value of the goods (they were all pieces of furniture) on the basis of a contract to reimburse and also on the basis that the defendants were common carriers.
(2.)Defendant No. 1 contended that there was no negligence on his part, that the truck was operated by gas plant, and the days being summer days, the goods were destroyed by fire due to some accident, and that there was no negligence on his part. He also denied that they were common carriers. The defendant No. 2 contended that he had already transferred the truck to defendant No. 1 and was not therefore responsible.
(3.)The suit failed in the trial Court but succeeded in the District Court. In second appeal which was heard by Mudholkar, J. the plaintiff failed and the suit was dismissed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.