Ramalinga Nadar v Narayana Reddiar

Facts of Ramalinga Nadar v Narayana Reddiar

in Ramalinga Nadar v Narayana Reddiar, the plaintiff, Ramalinga Nadar, booked goods with the defendant, Narayana Reddiar, for transportation. During the course of transit, the goods were looted by a mob. The defendant argued that the looting was an event beyond their control and should be considered an Act of God, which would exempt them from liability for the loss of the goods. The case relates to law of torts.

Issue Raised

Whether the looting of goods by a mob can be considered an Act of God, thereby exempting the defendant from liability.

Ramalinga Nadar v Narayana Reddiar Judgement

The Kerala High Court in Ramalinga Nadar vs Narayana Reddiar held that the looting of goods by a mob could not be classified as an Act of God. The court emphasised that only those events which are caused solely by natural forces, without any human intervention, can be termed as Acts of God.

The court in Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar reasoned that accidents or events leading to damage or loss can occur due to natural forces, human actions or a combination of both. However, for an event to be classified as an Act of God, it must be an inevitable accident caused purely by natural forces, without any involvement of human agency. Since the looting was carried out by a human mob, it did not fall under the definition of an Act of God. The court concluded that the defendant could not be exempted from liability on this ground.

The Kerala High Court in Ramalinga Nadar vs Narayana Reddiar ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Ramalinga Nadar, by holding that the looting of goods by a mob could not be considered an Act of God and therefore, the defendant, Narayana Reddiar, was liable for the loss of the goods during transit.

Ramalinga Nadar v Narayana Reddiar Case Summary

In Ramalinga Nadar v Narayana Reddiar (AIR 1971 Ker 197), the plaintiff’s goods were looted by a mob while in transit with the defendant’s transportation service. The defendant argued that the incident was an Act of God, absolving them of liability. The Kerala High Court rejected this defence, stating that an Act of God refers to events caused solely by natural forces without human intervention.

Since the looting involved human actions, it could not be classified as an Act of God. The court held that the defendant was liable for the loss, as the destructive acts of an unruly mob did not fall under the purview of an Act of God.