Back
High Court Of Calcutta
PRABIR KUMAR MAJUMDAR
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
NAVROM CONSTANTZA - Respondent
Suit 362 Of 1983
Decided On : 06/26/1987
CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT, 1925 - SECTION 3(6) - LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING SUIT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - EXTINGUISHMENT OF LIABILITY - CAUSE OF ACTION - DISMISSAL OF PLAINT The court interpreted Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, which provides a one-year limitation period for filing a suit against a carrier for loss or damage to goods. The court held that the effect of this provision is not merely to bar remedies but to extinguish the liability itself, resulting in the loss of any cause of action against the carrier after the expiry of the one-year period. The court applied this interpretation to a case where a plaintiff insurance company filed a suit against a ship owner and its agent more than one year after the alleged short landing of goods during carriage by sea. The court held that the suit was barred by the limitation period under Section 3(6) and that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application to reject the plaint and ordered the dismissal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, National Insurance Company, filed a suit against the defendants, a ship owner and its agent, for damages arising from the alleged short landing of goods during carriage by sea. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were liable for the loss and sought a decree for Rs. 2,69,567.75p. The defendants filed an application to reject the plaint and dismiss the suit, arguing that the suit was barred by the one-year limitation period under Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925. The defendants contended that the alleged short landing occurred on 27th November 1981, and the suit was filed on 9th June 1983, more than one year later.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against the defendants and that the suit was barred by the limitation period under Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925. The court found that the goods were delivered on 27th November 1981, when the vessel arrived at the Port of Calcutta, and that the suit was filed on 9th June 1983, more than one year later. The court interpreted Section 3(6) as extinguishing the carrier's liability after the expiry of the one-year period, resulting in the loss of any cause of action against the carrier.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the defendants. 2. Whether the suit was barred by the limitation period under Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, as extinguishing the carrier's liability after the expiry of the one-year period, resulting in the loss of any cause of action against the carrier. The court applied this interpretation to the facts of the case and found that the suit was filed more than one year after the delivery of the goods, resulting in the extinguishment of the defendants' liability and the loss of the plaintiff's cause of action.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to reject the plaint and ordered the dismissal of the suit against the defendants.
( 1 ) THIS is an application of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for rejection of the plaint in the suit against the said defendants and for dismissal of the suit against the said defendants.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff is National Insurance Company. On or about 9th June, 1983 the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for a decree of Rs. 2,69,567. 75p. The defendant No. 1 is a ship owner incorporated under the appropriate laws of Rumania. The defendant No. 2 carries on business as agent of the Shipping Companies. The defendant No. 3 is Steel Authority of India which purchased 648 pieces of mild steel plates weighing 1459. 57 Kgs. from a Rumania Company. It has been alleged that on or about 17th Sept. 1981, the defendant No. 2 acting as agent of the defendant No. 1 agreed with the defendant No. 3 that the defendant No. 1 would carry the said goods from the Port of Galatz to Calcutta. It is also alleged that on or about 30th Sept. 1981 the said goods were shipped on Board the vessel M. V. Cugir (hereinafter referred to as the said vessel) owned by the defendant No. 1 for carriage from Galatz to Calcutta and in respect whereof a bill of lading dated 30th September, 1981 was issued by the defendant No. 1. It is also the allegation of the plaintiff that by a policy of insurance dated 22nd October, 1981 the said goods were insured with the plaintiff against divers risks including the shortage and rust damage. It is alleged that on or about 28th Nov. 1981 the said vessel arrived at the Port of Calcutta and on the same day the consignment was unloaded and discharged at the Port of Calcutta when it was found that 37 pieces of mild steel plates weighing 87 Metric tons had been short landed. When the defendant No. 3 came to know about the short landing, a short landing certificate was issued by the Calcutta Port Trust on 6th Feb. 1983. According to the plaintiff, an 23rd Feb. 1982 the clearing agent lodged and/or preferred a claim with the defendant No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 2,39,598/- on account of the said short landing as the value of the said goods. It is also the allegation of the plaintiff that the plaintiff duly paid the said sum under the policy of insurance and the defendant No. 3 issued a deed of subrogation in favour of the plaintiff.
( 3 ) THE petitioner's case is that as it would appear from the writ of Summons, the plaint was presented and filed on 9th June, 1983 and the writ was issued on 4th March, 1985. The claims were made on the defendant No. 2 on account of the said alleged short landing by a letter dated 17th Feb. 1982. According to the petitioner, the said vessel left the Port of Calcutta on 7th Dec. 1981 which would be evident from a certificate of the Calcutta Port Trust, a copy whereof is annexed to the petition being Annexure-'f', and it would also be evident from the outturn report of the Calcutta Port Trust being Annexure-'g' to the petition.
( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the said bill, of lading dated 30th Sept. 1981 constitutes a contract of carriage incorporating the Hague Rules 1924. It is further alleged by the petitioner that in the alternative the carriage of goods by Sea Act 1925 incorporating the said Hague Rules 1924 is applicable to the transaction between the parties. According to the petitioner under Art. III of R. 6 of the said Rules the carrier stands discharged from all liability one year after the discharge of the goods or when the goods ought to have been delivered.
( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the last possible date of filing of the suit should be 7th Dec. 1982 after which the carrier stood discharged from all liability. It is the further case of the petitioner that it would be evident from the facts stated in the petition that the alleged cause of action of the defendant No. 3 arose more than one year before 9th June, 1983 when the suit was filed. Therefore, according to the petitioner, on the date of filing of the suit, the petitioners were disch
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
