Back
1966 Supreme(Mad) 28
Madras High Court
VENKATADRI
Trustees of the Port of Madras - Appellant
Versus
Simpson and Co.Ltd., Madras - Respondent
Decided On : 01/21/1966
V. V. Raghavan and S. Ramachandran, for Petitioner; King and Patridge, Habibulla Badsha and E. S. Govindan, for Respondents.
The provisions of S. 40 (2) read with S. 39 (3) of the Madras Port Trust Act will not apply to the facts of the present case and they do not affect the consignee's rights. The said sub-sections can be used only against the owners of shipping companies or carriers, if they do not prefer a claim within one month from the dale of receipt given for the goods landed from the steamer.
Headnote:
MADRAS PORT TRUST ACT - S. 40 (2), 39 (3), 110 - LIMITATION - NOTICE - CONSIGNEE'S RIGHT TO SUE - NOTICE TO BE GIVEN BY SHIPPING COMPANIES - APPLICABILITY OF S. 40 (2) - NOTICE UNDER S. 110 - PERIOD OF LIMITATION - EXCLUSION OF PERIOD OF NOTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Port Trust of Madras, received 11 cases of goods but did not deliver one case complained of by the first respondent. The second respondent-second plaintiff, with whom the goods had been insured had paid the claim amount and has become subrogated to the rights of the first respondent-first plaintiff. The suit was therefore filed by both the first and second respondents. The third respondent, Steamship Co., contended that the suit was not maintainable as against it inasmuch as the particular consignment landed from the vessel had been taken delivery of by the petitioner-Port Trust, who also issued the tally receipt. The petitioner, Port Trust of Madras, mainly contended that the claim against it was barred by time under S. 40 (2) of the Madras Port Trust Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that S. 40 (2) read with S. 39 (3) of the Act will not apply to the facts of the present case and they do not affect the consignee's rights. The said sub-sections can be used only against the owners of shipping companies or carriers, if they do not prefer a claim within one month from the dale of receipt given for the goods landed from the steamer. The court also held that the suit is not barred by limitation under S. 110 of the Act as the respondent is entitled to exclude the one month's period contemplated under S. 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act.
Issues: Whether the suit is barred by limitation under S. 40 (2) of the Madras Port Trust Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that S. 40 (2) read with S. 39 (3) of the Act will not apply to the facts of the present case and they do not affect the consignee's rights. The said sub-sections can be used only against the owners of shipping companies or carriers, if they do not prefer a claim within one month from the dale of receipt given for the goods landed from the steamer. The court also held that the suit is not barred by limitation under S. 110 of the Act as the respondent is entitled to exclude the one month's period contemplated under S. 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.
2. In order to dispose of this petition, it is necessary to mention certain relevant dates. The steamer in question arrived on 29-9-1960 at Madras with all the 11 cases of goods consigned as ordered by the first respondent. The Port Trust authorities issued the B certificate intimating the short delivery of the one case on 29-12-1960. The Insurance Company obtained the necessary letter of subrogation on 1-8-1961. The present suit was filed on 8-8-1961, for the recovery of the value of the missing goods. The Port Trust authorities would contend that the suit was barred by limitation under S. 40 (2) of the Madras Port Trust Act. The Port Trust authorities have also raised an additional ground that the suit is barred under S. 110 of that Act.
3. Section 40 (2) is to the effect that the Board shall not be in any way responsible for loss of or damage to goods of which it has taken charge, unless notice of such loss or damage shall have been given within one month of the date of the receipt given for the goods under sub-section (3) of S. 39. Section 39 (3) says that the Board shall, if required, take charge of the goods for the purpose of performing the service and shall give a receipt in the form and to the effect prescribed from time to time by the Central Government. The contention of the Port Trust authorities is that the consignee - first respondent did not give notice within one month from the date of receipt of the goods and that, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. The further contention is that the consignee did not file the suit within six months from the accrual of the cause of action and it is therefore barred under S. 110 of the Act. The contention of the plaintiffs on the other hand, is that the suit is not barred by limitation as the second plaintiff obtained a letter of subrogation by payment of money on 1-8-1961 and that the suit was filed within six months from the said date. They further contend that S. 40 (2) of the Act would not apply to the facts of the present case, because that section read with S. 39 (3) would apply only to shipping companies and not to the consignee, for the notice contemplated in S. 40 (2) refers to the notice to be given by the shipping companies. As far as S. 110 of the Act is concerned, the plaintiff's contention is that the limitation should not be taken from the date of issue of B certificate namely 29-12-1960, which merely informed the plaintiffs that one package had not been landed from the steamer finally they received a notice from the first defendant on 4-2-1961 that the goods had been landed and that they should refer to the Port Trust Authorities regarding the
