Law: Carriage By Air Act, 1934

Section: I, rr.22, 25, r.13, 15(1), r.29

Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)

Section: 106

Law: Bills of Lading Act, 1856

Section: 1

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.I, r.10

(a) Carriage by Air Act (XX of 1934) Sched. I, rr. 22 & 25 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 106- Loss of goods-Liability of carrier-Consignor not making special declaration of value at delivery-Suit for damages for loss of goods Success possible, only on proof being adduced of damage being caused due to carrier's wilful misconduct-Carrier, however, having sole custody of consignment, required to prove manner of dealing with consignment from time of its receipt to time of its loss.-[Damages Burden of proof). Reading rule 22 with rule 25 of Schedule I of Carriage by Air Act, 1934 as the respondent has admittedly not made a special declaration, it is clear that he could succeed only if he could bring his case under sub-rule (1) of rule 25. The burden of bringing the case under sub-rule (1) of rule 25 was on the respondent. However, as the appellant had the sole custody of the consignment, it was required under section 106 of the Evidence Act to produce evidence about the manner in which it had dealt with the respondent's consignment from the time it had received it to the time of its loss. (b) Carriage by Air Act (XX of 1934) Sched. I, ff. 22 & 25 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 106 Removal of plane to its hangar without permission of Custom authorities-Plaint making clear allegations about illegal removal of plane to carrier's hangar, carrier required to prove to hilt of plane's removal, even for unloading cargo to its own hangar, with permission of Superintendent of Customs-Approval of Superintendent of Customs not proved, not enough to state no complaint having been made by Customs Department-Unloading of its own plane by carrier at its own hangar, in circumstances, held, irregular and illegal. (c) Carriage by Air Act (XX of 1934)  Sched. I, rr. 22 & 25-Wilful misconduct-Carrier acting illegally or irregularly in taking plane with cargo to its own hangar-Under obligation to take special precautions to prevent possibility of theft Evidence of only witness produced by carrier showing no special precautions having been taken to guard plane while in hangar-Nor any other evidence produced to rebut plaintiff's…