High Court Of Calcutta
S. C. GHOSH, R. N. PYNE
THE GREAT INDIA TRADING CO.PVT.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
NOWRANGRAI RAMNIWAS - Respondent
Suit 1837 Of 1962
Decided On : 12/14/1982
COMMON CARRIER - NON-DELIVERY OF GOODS - LIABILITY OF CARRIER - SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930, SECTION 25 - BILL OF LADING - ENDORSEMENT - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a common carrier, received 125 bales of raw jute from the respondent No. 1 to be carried from Gauhati to Calcutta. The appellant issued a bill of lading showing the respondent No. 1 as the consignee. The goods were subsequently ordered to be delivered to Shri Hanuman Jute Mills at Calcutta. The appellant failed to deliver the goods, claiming that they were lost due to the sinking of the barge carrying them. The respondent No. 2, the insurer of the goods, paid the respondent No. 1 the value of the goods and became subrogated to the respondent No. 1's rights and remedies.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent No. 1 was the owner of the goods at the time of the loss, as the property in the goods had not passed to Shri Hanuman Jute Mills. The court found that there was no valid endorsement and delivery of the bill of lading to Shri Hanuman Jute Mills, and that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent No. 1 had transferred the property in the goods during transit. The court also held that the appellant was negligent in causing the loss of the goods and was liable to pay damages to the respondent No. 1.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent No. 1 was the owner of the goods at the time of the loss. 2. Whether the appellant was negligent in causing the loss of the goods. 3. Whether the appellant is liable to pay damages to the respondent No. 1.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent No. 1 was the owner of the goods at the time of the loss, as the property in the goods had not passed to Shri Hanuman Jute Mills. The court found that there was no valid endorsement and delivery of the bill of lading to Shri Hanuman Jute Mills, and that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent No. 1 had transferred the property in the goods during transit. 2. The court held that the appellant was negligent in causing the loss of the goods. The court found that the appellant had failed to disprove negligence and that the goods had been lost due to the appellant's negligence. 3. The court held that the appellant was liable to pay damages to the respondent No. 1. The court found that the appellant was a common carrier and had failed to disprove negligence. The court also found that the appellant had failed to deliver the goods to the respondent No. 1 or its agent, and that the appellant was therefore liable for breach of duty.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is derected against a judgment and decree passed by Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. on January 29, 1968. By the said judgment and decree, the learned trial Judge directed payment of the sum of Rs. 16,500/- in favour of the respondents. The claim of the respondent No. 1 was for non-delivery of goods in the following circumstances: the respondent No. 2 was the insurer of the said goods and paid the respondent No. 1 the value of the goods insured against. The appellant, inter alia, carries on business under the name and style of the Great India Boating Company inter alia as carrier of goods and was at all material times and still is a common carrier of goods for hire by inland navigation. On or about October 3, 1961, the appellant as such common carrier received and accepted at Gauhati 125 bales of raw jute each bale weighing 150 kilograms the property of the respondent No, 1 on board the appellant's barge bearing No. A/5214 to be safely lowed by Steamer and securely carried to Calcutta and there to be delivered to the respondent No. 1 or order. By way and as evidence of the said contract of carriage, the appellant duly issued a bill of lading bearing No. R/7211 dated October 3, 1961. The said goods subsequently were ordered to be delivered to Shri Hanuman Jute Mills at Calcutta. At all material times, the respondent No. 1 was the owner of the said goods. In breach of its duties as such common carrier and/or in its duties as carrier for reward the appellant failed and neglected, safely or securely or at all, to carry the said goods or to deliver the same as directed. The appellant alleges that the said goods have been lost due to the sinking of the said barge at Khulna in East Pakistan. By reason of the premises the respondent No. 1 has been deprived of the said goods and suffered damages in the sura of Rs. 18,725/- being the value of the said goods. The appellant did not pay the value of the said goods and hence the suit was filed.
( 2 ) THE case of the appellant in its written statement was that the goods were carried on basis of goods forwarding note and the bill of lading at owner's risk and expressly stipulated that the appellant will not be responsible for loss or damage to goods arising from Act of God, strandmgs, groundings, collision, snags or any accident or dangers of the rivers, canals, locks or navigation. No claim in respect of the said contract shall be valid unless in writing and delivered at the office of the defendant in Calcutta within 4 weeks from date of any default, loss or damages in respect of which such claim arises. The said forwarding note also provided that in the event of any of the terms of the forwarding note conflicting or appearing to conflict with the terms of any other agreement between the shippers and the service (that is the appellant), the terms of this forwarding note of such agreement shall prevail at the option of the service (that is the appellant ). The appellant informed Shri Hanuman Jute Mills that the barge carrying the consignment of 125 bales met with an accident and sank near Khulna and that the consignment was a total loss. On 13th October, 1961, the respondent No. 1 made a claim with the respondent No. 2. On 2lst October, 1961, the respondent No. 1 sent a letter written by the appellant and addressed to Shri Hanuman Jute Mills to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 thereupon paid the full amount namely Rs. 18,725/- for which the said consignment was insured in favour of the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 on receipt of the said sum executed a letter of subrogation dated 22nd November, 1961 whereby the respondent No. 2 became iubrogated to all the rights and remedies in respect of the subject matter insured. It appears from the correspondence that on on about 22nd March, 1962 Shri Hanuman Jute Mills made a claim against the appellant for delivery of the said consignment and claim a sum of Rs. 17,330. 65 p. at the rate of Rs. 92. 43
Referred to : Sukul Brothers v. H.K.Kayrana
Commrs. for the Port of Calcutta v. General Trading Co. Ltd.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.