J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) BY this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (code for short hereinafter), the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 1972. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal need narration so as to appreciate the merits of the appeal and challenge against it. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 is original plaintiff no. 1 (consignor) and respondent No. 2 herein is original plaintiff No. 2 (insurer) and the appellant herein is the original defendant. For the sake of convenience and brevity, they are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendant. The plaintiffs instituted the above suit for recovery of Rs. 28,239. 50 by way of damages against the defendant. The plaintiffs, inter alia, contended that plaintiff No. 1 (The Indian Rayon corporation Limited) entrusted 76 boxes containing viscose yarn goods at its plant, at Veraval, to defendant-company for transport to Ahmedabad, Amritsar and delhi as per the details given in the schedule attached thereto. The goods under consignment were valued at Rs. 1,03,576. 50 Ps. Out of 76 boxes of yarn, 62 boxes were to be despatched to Delhi and Amritsar to M/s. Saraogi and Sons, who were acting as distributors of plaintiff no. 1. The goods despatched to the said distributors on the consignment basis. So far as the remaining 14 boxes which were consigned to Ahmedabad were concerned, they were meant for the dealers of plaintiff No. 1. This transaction took place on 9-2-1970. Thus, plaintiff no. 1 was the owner of the goods till the date of the accident. The plaintiffs further contended that the defendant-transport company had accepted the consignment and agreed to transport the consignment to respective destinations in consideration of payment of freight on being satisfied that they were properly packed and they were in sound condition. In respect of the said consignment notes were issued on 9-2-1970, in favour of plaintiff No. 1. ( 4 ) THE goods under consignment were insured by plaintiff No. 1 with plaintiff no. 2 in their own rights as owner of the said goods. The plaintiffs had loaded all the 76 boxes of viscose yarn entrusted to the defendant- transport company for transport in a truck bearing registration no. GTZ 2998 for their respective destination. ( 4 ) THE goods under consignment were insured by plaintiff No. 1 with plaintiff no. 2 in their own rights as owner of the said goods. The plaintiffs had loaded all the 76 boxes of viscose yarn entrusted to the defendant- transport company for transport in a truck bearing registration no. GTZ 2998 for their respective destination. The said truck left the plant of plaintiff No. 1 in the afternoon, on 9-2-1970, and while it was on its run, the unfortunate road accident occurred at about 19 hours near village Vanthali, about 40 miles away from Veraval. The truck was over-turned and almost all the boxes were borken and contents were thrown out. The yarn was also cut at several place due to the road accident. ( 5 ) SURVEY was carried out in respect of the damage to the consigned goods by one M/s. G. P. Dave and Sons, on 16-2-1970. Report of the surveyor was submitted. After the survey was carried out, plaintiff No. 1 served the defendant-transport company with a notice calling upon it to pay the damages of Rs. 33,143. 50 Ps. The defendant- transport company failed to pay the damages, as claimed, despite repeated demands by plaintiff No. 1. However, the defendant- company, in reply to notice dated 14-5-1970, contended that it was extremely sorry that there was a colossal damage to the goods consigned. However, it disowned the responsibility to pay damages. ( 6 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 lodged the claim with the insurer, plaintiff No. 2, in respect of the damage to the consigned goods. Plaintiff No. 2 reimbursed the plaintiff no. 1 after receipt of the survey report. Plaintiff No. 2 paid Rs. 28,239. 50 Ps. on the basis of the survey report. By virtue of the payment, plaintiff No. 2 (insurance company) is statutorily subrogated to all the rights, title and interest of plaintiff no. 1. A letter of subrogation-cum-special power of attorney was also executed by plaintiff No. 1 in favour of plaintiff No. 2. Since defendant-company failed to make payment as claimed by the plaintiffs - the original consignor and the insurer - they filed the above suit for recovery of Rs. 28,239. 50 Ps. with interest by way of damages against the defendant-transport company. ( 7 ) THE defendant appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement, Ex. 13. Since defendant-company failed to make payment as claimed by the plaintiffs - the original consignor and the insurer - they filed the above suit for recovery of Rs. 28,239. 50 Ps. with interest by way of damages against the defendant-transport company. ( 7 ) THE defendant appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement, Ex. 13. It, inter alia, contended that while taking the consignment, attention of plaintiff No. 1 was drawn to the fact that the boxes (containers) were not properly packed and were not in sound condition and hence consignment notes were issued at "owners risk" with the terms and conditions as narrated in each consignment note. It also denied that the goods were loaded at the plant premises of plaintiff No. 1. It was denied by the defendant-company that plaintiff No. 1 suffered damages as claimed. According to the case of the defendant-company, the consignment were booked at "owners risk" and so no liability could be imposed upon the defendant-company for damages. It was further contended by the defendant company that there was no negligence or any responsibility on the part of the company for damage to the goods. Thus, the entire suit was challenged with all possible and available pleas by the defendant-company. ( 8 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the pleading of the parties, issues have been settled, at Ex. 19. Having examined and appreciated the evidence on record, the trial court was pleased to decree the suit for Rs. 28,239. 50 Ps. with costs and interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of the suit till recovery of the amount, on 30-11-1976. ( 9 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the original defendant has, now, come up before this court challenging its legality and validity. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant/original defendant has contended that there was no contract of carriage for transportation of consignment of 76 boxes from Veraval. it is contended that there was a contract to transport the goods from Rajkot to amritsar. In order to substantiate this contention, he has placed reliance on the consignment notes, produced, at Exs. 34 to 48 and 84 before the trial court. it is contended that there was a contract to transport the goods from Rajkot to amritsar. In order to substantiate this contention, he has placed reliance on the consignment notes, produced, at Exs. 34 to 48 and 84 before the trial court. This submission, prima facie, would appear to be subtle and captivating but not sustainable in the light of the evidence on record. Such a contention was raised before the trial court and it was, rightly, rejected, this contention is reiterated in this First Appeal also for being rejected, in view of the evidence on record. ( 11 ) IT is true that the aforesaid consignment notes indicate that the goods were booked for transportation from rajkot to Amritsar. It is equally true that the accident occurred near village vanthali, about 40 kms. away from veraval in Junagadh District. The place of accident is not en-route from Rajkot to Amritsar. The contention of the defendant-transport company that the company was not to carry the consignment from Veraval to Rajkot and the contract of carriage in respect of the consigned goods in question commenced from Rajkot onwards to Amritsar, is examined in greater detail by the trial court and is, rightly, not accepted. The finding of the trial court on this submission is, fully justified. It would be pertinent to refer to the reply to notice dated 14-5-1970, at Ex. 75. It is a reply given by defendant-transport company. It was contended in the said reply that the defendant-company would not be liable as the consignments in question had been booked at "owners risk". It was never stated that there was no contract of carriage in respect of the consignment in question. The point which is, now, reiterated in this appeal that there was no contract, is, remotely not indicated in the reply, Ex. 75. On the contrary, what is stated in the reply is a pointer that there was a contract for carriage in respect of the goods which were damaged on account of the road accident, on 9-2-1979. It would be interesting to refer to two paragraphs of the said reply given by defendant, which read as under: "with reference to your letter No. IRF/ins/2205/70 dated 24/27-4-70 addressed to our Hyderabad Office, we are extremely sorry for the colossal damage sustained to the subject consignment. It would be interesting to refer to two paragraphs of the said reply given by defendant, which read as under: "with reference to your letter No. IRF/ins/2205/70 dated 24/27-4-70 addressed to our Hyderabad Office, we are extremely sorry for the colossal damage sustained to the subject consignment. The Truck No. GTZ/2998 which was carrying your goods, unfortunately met with an accident on 9-2-70 near Vanthali about 40 miles from Veraval. From our record, it has been observed that the above consignments have been booked at owners risk, i. e. , at the risk and responsibility of the owners thereof and it has been clearly elucidated on the reverse side of the consignment note. " ( 12 ) NOT only that, again the defendant company sent a reply on 16-10-1970, which is produced, at Ex. 79. There is also no wisper about the absence or denial of any contract of carriage in respect of the consignment in question from veraval. On the contrary, defendant-company stated in the said reply, Ex. 79, that it was extremely sorry for the damages caused to the subject consignment. It will be also expedient to refer to paragraph 2 of the said reply, ex. 79, which reads as under: "we have availed all the necessary precautions while in transportation and preserving the goods while in our costody and in transit, even in spite of that the accident occurred, which was beyond the control of the corporation. " ( 13 ) ON conjoined reading of the aforesaid two replies sent by defendant-company, there is no any iota of doubt that there was a contract for carriage in respect of the suit consignment. Therefore, mere mention in the consignments, at Exs. 34 to 48 and 84, that the goods were consigned from rajkot to Amritsar, does not take the dishonest defence of the defendants any further. Needless to mention that the expression "rajkot" printed in the consignment note is not corrected by the expression "veraval". Under these circumstances, the defendant transport company is not in a position to make any slice of profit out of this submission. Needless to mention that the expression "rajkot" printed in the consignment note is not corrected by the expression "veraval". Under these circumstances, the defendant transport company is not in a position to make any slice of profit out of this submission. Merely because the expression "rajkot" printed on the consignment note had remained to be corrected, the contention so vehemently propounded by the defendant that the defendant-transport company cannot be fastened with the liability for payment of damages on account of the road accident, is not only promiscuous but also preposterous and it is, rightly, rejected by the trial court. ( 14 ) SINCE this court has no any doubt in holding that there was a contract of carnage in respect of the suit consignments which were loaded from the plant premises of plaintiff No. 1, on 9-2-1970, the liability of defendant- transport company will arise under section 6 read with the provisions of section 8 of (The) Carriers Act, 1865. In absence of a special contract limiting the liability, the liability of the defendant- company will be changed from a common carrier to that of an insurer and it is liable for all loss of or all injuries to those goods while they are in the course of transit. The carrier cannot escape its liability by merely contending that there was no negligence on its part. In fact there is no dispute in the present case that the truck loaded with the goods in question met with an accident near village vanthali, District Junagadh, and the goods had been damaged, which were surveyed and assessed by the surveyor. The extent of damaged caused to the goods is not disputed. There is also no dispute about the fact that plaintiff No. 1 had served with a notice of loss or damage to the goods within six months from the date of accident, as required under Section 10 of the Act, to defendant. Therefore, the defendant-transport company is liable for the damages as observed hereinbefore. The goods which were damaged in transit and defendant-transport company is the carrier and the liability of a common carrier is that of an insurer. There was no special contract limiting the liability. Therefore, the defendant-transport company is liable for the damages as observed hereinbefore. The goods which were damaged in transit and defendant-transport company is the carrier and the liability of a common carrier is that of an insurer. There was no special contract limiting the liability. The absolute liability of the common carrier cannot be questioned by the defendant in the present case in absence of any special contract or damage to the goods on account of act of God. Except these two exceptions, the liability of the common carrier under Section 6 read with section 8 of the Act is absolute. The trial court has, rightly, decreed the suit. In the opinion of this court, the present appeal is, totally, meritless and deserves to be dismissed with full costs. ( 15 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. .