Short Note : 1. The revision arose in a suit which had been filed by the plaintiff-non-applicant, M/S Narendra Kumar and Co., a partnership firm against the defendant applicant, M/S Associated Traders and Engineers Private Limited, for recovery of Rs.5,800, as damages. The defendant was a common carrier and carried on business of plying trucks and transporting goods from place to place in India. One M/S Uttamchand Nainumal, on 5th January 1973, delivered two parcels containing printed cotton sarees to the defendant at Jethur (Rajkot) for carriage to Jabalpur. The goods were consigned to self. The defendant, on receipt of the goods from the said M/S Uttamchand Nainumal issued a receipt which was Ex-D-1. The plaintiff purchased the goods and the receipt was endorsed in its favour. The defendant did not deliver the goods at Jabalpur inspite of notice. On these facts, the plaintiff instituted the suit for damages at Jabalpur. The defendant, amongst other, raised the two pleas :- (1) that the Court at Jabalpur had no jurisdiction to try the suit; and (ii) that there being no privity of contract between the plaintiff, the suit was not maintainable without joining M/S Uttamchand Nainumal as a party to the suit. 2. Held : It is not disputed that the defendant is a common carrier as defined in the Carriers Act, 1865. The plaintiff has pleaded that it is the purchaser of the goods from the consignor. In other words, the plaintiff has pleaded that it is the owner of goods. The suit of the plaintiff is essentially under section 8 of the Carriers Act, which makes a common carrier liable to the owner of the goods for loss or damage to any property delivered to carrier for carriage. The statutory liability in favour of the owner created by section 8 of the Act is not dependent on any contract between the owner and the carrier. It may be that the owner of the goods who sues for loss or damages is also a party to the contract. That would have been the position had M/S Uttamchand Nainumal brought the suit. The plaintiff is not a party to the contract. Indeed, it is pleaded in the written statement that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the carrier. That would have been the position had M/S Uttamchand Nainumal brought the suit. The plaintiff is not a party to the contract. Indeed, it is pleaded in the written statement that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the carrier. But as earlier stated, the plaintiff can still sue on the ground that it is the owner and the defendant is liable for loss or damage to the goods. The plaintiff has no doubt in paragraph 7 of the plaint stated that it is suing both on contract and in tort. But reading the plaint as a whole, it cannot be taken to be a suit on contract. It is settled that where there is an alternative cause of action in tort, the plaintiff is not obliged to sue on the basis of a contract and if he brings a suit in tort a term of contract would not compel him to restrict his action to the forum agreed upon between the parties. The same principle applies in the present case. The plaintiff had a cause of action as owner under section 8 of the Carriers Act. The liability created by section 8 is akin to liability in tort, subject to the special burden of proof enacted in section 9 of the Act. The plaintiff was not obliged to sue on contract. Even if it be held that clause 17 of the terms and condition contained in Ex-D-1 embraced a term as to the forum which was binding on the parties to the contract, the clause is not attracted to bar the suit filed by the plaintiff. Further, as the suit is based on the ownership of the goods, it is not necessary to join the consignor as a party to the suit. Messers Thakurdass Bhudarsao, Balaghat v. The Industrial Stores Company, Bombay, ILR 1975 M. P. 1093 referred to. Appeal dismissed.