P L D 1970 Supreme Court 67 (PLP)
THE RIVERS STEAM NAVIGATION Co. LTD. AND OTHERS‑ — Appellants Versus THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF BAKARGANJ AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1970 Supreme Court 67 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Abdus Sattar and M. R. Khan, JJ |
| Parties | THE RIVERS STEAM NAVIGATION Co. LTD. AND OTHERS‑ — Appellants Versus THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF BAKARGANJ AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1970 Supreme Court 67 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1970 Supreme Court 67 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Abdus Sattar and M. R. Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1970 Supreme Court 67 (PLP) (THE RIVERS STEAM NAVIGATION Co. LTD. AND OTHERS‑ — Appellants Versus THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF BAKARGANJ AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Mohammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ahdur‑Rab‑II, Attorney/Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- B. N. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by D. K. Khadim, Attorney/Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Md. Jani Alam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Siddiq Ahmad Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. M. Huq, Attorney/Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
- Dates of hearing: 15th and 16th December 1969.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 17th March and 17th April 1965, respectively, in Appeal from Original Decree No. 174 of 1959). Carriers Act (III of 1865), S. 8
‑Liability of common carrier for loss due to Its own negligence‑
Does not require any privity of contract between owner of goods and carrier‑--Carrier liable even if goods not tendered for carriage by owner himself. Where goods were delivered to a Railway for carriage and which had to be carried part of the way by steamer for delivery at their destination and in the course of transit part of the con signment was lost due to the negligence on the part of the steamer company, the Court held the Steamer Company liable for the loss caused to the owner of the goods. The Steamer Company in appeal before the Supreme Court claimed that there being no privity of contract between the owner of the goods and the Steamer Company, the Steamer Company could not be held liable for the loss: Held, section 8 of the Carriers Act whereunder a common carrier is liable for loss due to its own negligence does not itself require any privity of contract between the owner of goods and the carrier. This section makes every common carrier liable for loss of, or damage to, any goods delivered to the carrier where such loss or damage arises from the negligence of the carrier or any of its agents or servants. Section 8 of the Carriers Act does not require that the owner himself is to deliver the goods to the common carrier. If it is proved that the goods were, in fact, delivered to the common carrier, the requirement of the section as to delivery of the goods is satisfied, and it is immaterial who actually tendered the goods to the common carrier. I. G. N. & R. S. N. Co. Ltd. v. Girdharilul A I R 1927 Cal. 394; Dekhari Tea Co. Ltd. v. Assam‑Bengal Railway Co. Ltd. 23 C W N 998; K. C. Dhar v. Ahmad Bux A I R 1933 Cal. 735 and Irrawaddy Flotilla Co. v. Bugwandas 18 1 A 121 ref.
Judgment & Decree
S. 8
‑Liability of common carrier for loss due to Its own negligence‑
Does not require any privity of contract between owner of goods and carrier‑--Carrier liable even if goods not tendered for carriage by owner himself. Where goods were delivered to a Railway for carriage and which had to be carried part of the way by steamer for delivery at their destination and in the course of transit part of the con signment was lost due to the negligence on the part of the steamer company, the Court held the Steamer Company liable for the loss caused to the owner of the goods. The Steamer Company in appeal before the Supreme Court claimed that there being no privity of contract between the owner of the goods and the Steamer Company, the Steamer Company could not be held liable for the loss: Held, section 8 of the Carriers Act whereunder a common carrier is liable for loss due to its own negligence does not itself require any privity of contract between the owner of goods and the carrier. This section makes every common carrier liable for loss of, or damage to, any goods delivered to the carrier where such loss or damage arises from the negligence of the carrier or any of its agents or servants. Section 8 of the Carriers Act does not require that the owner himself is to deliver the goods to the common carrier. If it is proved that the goods were, in fact, delivered to the common carrier, the requirement of the section as to delivery of the goods is satisfied, and it is immaterial who actually tendered the goods to the common carrier. I. G. N. & R. S. N. Co. Ltd. v. Girdharilul A I R 1927 Cal. 394; Dekhari Tea Co. Ltd. v. Assam‑Bengal Railway Co. Ltd. 23 C W N 998; K. C. Dhar v. Ahmad Bux A I R 1933 Cal. 735 and Irrawaddy Flotilla Co. v. Bugwandas 18 1 A 121 ref. Syed Mohammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ahdur‑Rab‑II, Attorney/Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. B. N. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by D. K. Khadim, Attorney/Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.
1. Md. Jani Alam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Siddiq Ahmad Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. M. Huq, Attorney/Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.