Transporters are liable for negligence in delivery, and limitation periods under the Transport of Goods Act must be adhered to, with specific conditions for determining when goods can be treated as lost.

ORDER :

Pranav Trivedi, J.

1. The present First Appeal is preferred under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 09.01.2023 passed below Exhibit-120 in Commercial Civil Suit No. 563 of 2021 (old Civil Suit No. 1373 of 2011) by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad was pleased to partly decree the suit directing the present appellant – original defendant no. 1 to pay an amount of Rs.17,06,612.46 paise only to respondent no. 1 - original plaintiff with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing the present suit till realization of the amount.

2. The factual matrix which has led to filing of the present appeal is that the appellant – original defendant no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) represented respondent no. 1 – original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) about its ability and experience to transport the goods from Ahmedabad, India to Kabul, Afghanistan. The respondent is engaged in the production of pharmaceuticals drugs viz., Sterile injectible pharmaceutical and products range comprises many products across multiple markets and therapeutic segments including anaesthesia, critical care, anti-infective etc. One of the product of the respondent being Sodium Lactate and Sodium Chloride Intra Venous Infusion BP were sold by the respondent to M/s. Sayed Obaidullah Sayed Zadah Limited, a Company in Afghanistan. The respondent had to transport the goods to Khairkana, Phase-3, Kabul, Afghanistan. Pursuant to the representation made by the appellant, it was decided that two 40 ft., Containers bearing No. GLDU 7561405 and CRSU9020956 were to be delivered through the appellant to the buyers at Kabul. It was an undisputed fact that the consignments were in good and sound conditions when their delivery was taken by the appellant and the consignments were duly packed. It is also an undisputed fact that the goods had specific shelf-life after which the goods could not have been used and would become useless. It is also an undisputed fact that the respondent had paid Rs.2,36,107.43 paise and Rs.2,35,525.03; respectively, to the appellant being the charge of freight, terminal handling, container report, bill of loading fees, bill of loading surrenders and other charges for the said two containers.

2.1 The said two containers were loaded around 02.07.2010 and 17.07.2010; respectively, in ships at GTIL Port in India and were to be delivered after around 15 days at Kabul. It is also an undisputed fact that it was categorically mentioned in the bill of loading that the basis of transport transaction would be on CIF basis and the appellant had assured that the delivery would be carried out in time. However, the appellant informed the respondent that on 16.08.2010 two containers were not delivered and they were detained at Amangarh terminal. The containers had left the shores of India on 02.07.2010 and 17.07.2010; respectively. However, on 16.08.2020 i.e. after merely after 45 days, it was informed that the goods were detained at Amangarh terminal and had not reached Kabul. Being aggrieved by such action of the appellant, the respondent had preferred Civil Suit being Commercial Civil Suit No. 563 of 2021 (old Civil Suit No. 1373 of 2011), inter alia praying for damages, loss of value of goods, value of replacement, loss of reputation for nondelivery, loss of future business etc., amounting to total claim of Rs.2,49,27,360.46 only. The learned Judge, Commercial Court, vide judgment and order dated 09.01.2023, partly decreed the suit and ordered claim of amount of Rs.17,06,612.46/-. It is this judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad which is assailed in the present appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. Nishit Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant an