The carrier's liability for any loss or damage to the goods is limited as per the provisions of the Bill of Lading, and the burden of proof regarding the actual weight of the goods shipped rests with the shipper.

D. Sreedevi, J.

This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 55 of 1978 of the Sub Court, Kochi. The defendant is the appellant.

2. The facts for the purpose of this appeal are these: The first plaintiff shipped on board the vessel S.S. Jaladuta, which belonged to the defendant-appellant, 11830 MT of muriate of potash "clean on board" at the Port of Illyichevak for discharge in one port of India, as per bill of lading, Ext. Al dated 13.2.1977. The first plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, wanted 5000 tons of the said goods to be discharged at the Port of Kandla and the remaining goods at the port of Cochin. The loading was done into the ship's hatches in bulk by the shipper and the bill of lading states, among other things, that "measurement, weight, quality, brand, condition, quality, contends and value as declared by the shipper, but unknown to the carrier". The unloading of the goods at the Port of discharge was admittedly the shipper's responsibility. The second plaintiff, who is the second respondent herein, is the first plaintiffs agent to arrange for unloading of the goods and taking delivery of the same at both the Ports.

3. The vessel carrying the goods arrived at the Port of Kandla on 28.2.1977. Manifest was filed to unload 5000 tons of goods at that port. Accordingly, after making a hatch survey, 5000 MT of the goods were discharged from the vessel by the first plaintiffs agents. The quantity of the goods discharged from the vessel was fixed by draft survey done by the approved surveyor, who is an officer of the Cochin Port and the daily discharge reports of the goods from the hatches prepared by the first plaintiffs agents, in the course of discharge of the goods from the vessel: After discharging the said quantity of goods at Kandla, the vessel left that Port and reached Cochin on 17.3.1977. There also the same process was repeated in the discharge of the goods. Import manifest was filed for the remaining 6830 MT of the goods. After the hatch survey and draft survey by the approved surveyor, the goods were discharged from the vessel by the first plaintiffs agents. After the unloading was done at both the Ports, the goods were filled in bags of 50 kgs. each for supply to different parties. This process was done under the supervision of surveyors appointed by the first, plaintiff. This process, which is known as standardisation operation, was done at Kandla during the course of 8 days. After standardisation it is reported that the total weight of the goods filled in the bags was 4910.00 MT at Kandla. The standardisation operation at Kochi took 15 days. After standardisation, it is reported that the total quantity was only 6678.9 MT which is less than the quantity of goods discharged at the Wharf. Thus, on the basis of the surveys done after the standardisation of bags of 50 kgs. each there was a total shortage of 241.100 MT of goods. The Union of India filed a suit for realisation of the value of the said quantity of goods.

4. The defendant, who is the appellant herein, contested the suit, stating that the goods loaded on board the ship were discharged at the Ports of delivery, in bulk by the plaintiffs. It was expressly stated in the bill of lading that the weight of goods shown was as declared by the shipper and unknown to the carrier, that the hatches were surveyed and found in tact before discharge of the goods from the vessel at both the Ports, that the whole goods as shown in the bill of lading were manifested for import and accordingly imported as would be evident by the draft surveys, daily discharge reports and the port out turn statements, and hence they are not liable to pay the plaint claim.

5. The trial court, after taking evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, this appeal his been filed by the defendant-company.

6. Admittedly, the defendants are the owners of Steamer "JALADUTA". They received