Mere Plea of Act of God Without Proof Cannot Defeat Carrier’s Liability – Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a transporter’s challenge against recovery decrees for damage to goods in transit. Justice Deepak Gupta affirmed that a carrier’s liability cannot be avoided merely by pleading natural calamity unless proved by cogent evidence. The Court upheld the appellate decree based on the carrier’s own written admission of damage, holding that no substantial question of law arose.

“Admission of Damage in Carrier’s Own Letter Sufficient to Fasten Liability”

The dispute arose when 171 packages of viscose fiber yarn booked from Champdani (Calcutta) to Ludhiana under GR No. 00359 dated 19.09.1988 were delivered in damaged condition. The goods were insured, and the insurer, having indemnified the consignor, stepped into its shoes through subrogation. Significantly, the defendants themselves issued a certificate dated 05.11.1988 (Exhibit P3) admitting that the goods had been damaged and assessing the loss at about ₹70,000.

The trial court decreed the suit for ₹1,00,000 with interest, while the first appellate court modified the decree to ₹86,110, relying not on the unproved surveyor’s report but on the defendants’ own letter of admission.

“Flash Flood Defence Rejected for Lack of Evidence – Adverse Inference Drawn”

The appellants argued that the damage resulted from flash floods and heavy rains between Rajpura and Ludhiana, constituting an “act of God” absolving them of liability. However, the High Court found this plea hollow. Justice Gupta noted: “Mere pleading of natural calamity is insufficient. The defendants failed to examine the driver or the cleaner of the truck, who were the best witnesses to prove such defence. Non-production of key witnesses justifies drawing an adverse inference.”

Instead, the only witness examined was the manager (DW-1), who had no personal knowledge of the events and even admitted ignorance about Exhibit P3. The Court held that in such circumstances, the adverse inference drawn by the appellate court was fully justified.

“Quantum of Compensation Based on Reliable Admission”

The Court upheld the appellate court’s reliance on Exhibit P3, where the defendants themselves acknowledged both the fact of damage and the approximate value of the loss. Although the surveyor was not examined, this omission did not vitiate the decree, since the carrier’s own admission was sufficient proof. The appellate decree awarding ₹70,000 as compensation, along with ₹16,110 as pre-suit interest and future interest at 12% per annum, was thus affirmed.

Justice Deepak Gupta concluded: “The findings of the First Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and suffer from no illegality or perversity. No substantial question of law arises.” Accordingly, the second appeal was dismissed as meritless.

The judgment reinforces the settled principle that a carrier cannot escape liability by a bare invocation of “act of God” unless supported by direct and credible evidence, and that admissions in its own documents can form the foundation for awarding damages.

Date of Decision: 4 September 2025