K.C. Chunder, J.
1. These are two Rules obtained by the plaintiff and the defendant in connection with a contract for carriage of goods. The learned Judges of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes disposed of the application under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act by remanding the matter to the trial Court because they were of opinion that there was a special exemption from liability of the carrier under the Carriage by Air Act, Act XX of 1934. The special exemption from liability given in Rule 36 is given to the carrier. Secondly, under Rule 9 he cannot get the Special Exemption unless he strictly complies with the particulars in the consignment noteas given in Rule 8 (a) to (1) and (q). In the present case the consignment note was by the forwarding agent and not the carrier and the second thing is that all the details necessary were not mentioned. Indeed it is not in the form as laid down in Rule 8. Therefore there can be no special exemption from liability even if it could be proved that under Section 4 of the Act the provisions had been extended to inland airways.
2. Under the circumstances, the order of remand was wrong and must be set aside and the case must now go back to the learned Judges for decision on the merits on the two questions of agency and exemption from risk in the contract with the defendant; the plaintiff is said to have in the contract taken upon himself the liability to have the goods carried at his own risk. These points have not been decided.
3. These points should now be gone into by the learned Judges under Section 38 themselves. Both the Rules are thus made absolute and the case is remanded to the learned Judges of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes. There will be no order for costs.