Liability of Port Trust in tendering to consignee exact brand of goods as per the bill of loading.

This appeal under the Letters Patent has been preferred, on leave granted by Venkatadri, J., who, in second appeal, reversing the decision of the Courts below, upheld the claim of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 3,774-31 the value of goods not delivered.

The brief facts of the case, on which the rights and liabilities of the parties will have to be considered, are these. The first plaintiff is a clearing and forwarding agent at Madras for the second plaintiff, a firm of merchants at Sivakasi and the reference hereafter as the plaintiffs, will be of the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs are the consignee of goods from Tokyo, Japan, of ten cases of red phosperous, amorphous, bearing marks P. K. J., 1 to 10 numbers and described as 10 wooden cases of KDK brand. On the arrival of the ship, s.s.Azumasan Maru at Madras the plaintiff submitted their import application, Exhibit A-15, and the Port Trust authorities offered to deliver them ten cases of P. K. J. bearing Nos. 4 and 9, and 8 other cases with different numbers but all bearing brand marks J.C.I. There is evidence that J.C.I. brand is of an inferior variety, KDK brand costing Rs. 3-12-0 per lb., J.C.I. brand being priced at Rs. 3 per lb. only. One hundred and twenty cases under the main mark P. K. J. had been unloaded. There were five consignees including the plaintiffs, and four had taken delivery of goods. The plaintiffs refused to take delivery of the goods tendered as not in accordance with the bill of lading. The Port Trust authorities, the appellant before us, issued them only what is called the A certificate, though the plaintiffs required of them in the circumstances a B certificate. On the evidence, it was clear that the plaintiffs were the consignees of P.K.J, I to 10, KDK brand. The bill of lading (Exhibit A-20) the import manifest (Exhibit B-5), the invoice (Exhibit A-1), the insurance papers, all refer to the plaintiffs as the consignees of the goods, P.KJ. 1-10 of KDK brand. made in Japan. It may also be stated that the plaintiffs had paid the customs duty as on KDK brand, and the customs authorities would not permit them to remove cases of J.C I. brand. There is also evidence to show that on the plaintiff’s refusal to take delivery of the goods insisting upon the issue of a B certificate, the steamer agents were not agreeable, when required by the Port Trust, to the issue of B certificate as according to them, the goods had been correctly landed. It was in those circumstances that the plaintiffs preferred the claim impleading the steamer agents also as party defendants. The Court of first instance rejected the plaintiffs’ claim, and the plaintiffs, finding that, on the facts as disclosed in the trial Court, the steamer agents would not at all be liable, did not make them parties in the further appeals by them. The stand taken by the Port Trust authorities was that they were bound to deliver the cargo only according to the main marks, in terms of which they tallied and unloaded the cargo, and that they were not concerned with any particular brand of the goods. In that view, on the failure of the plaintiffs to clear the goods according to law, they sold the goods in public auction.

The Court of first instance and the Court on appeal therefrom, while holding that the Port Trust authorities were the agents of the consignee for the purpose of taking delivery of the consignments and that their responsibility was over as soon as they were in a position to deliver to the consignee the goods as received from the ship, held that a mistake should have occurred even at the time of loading of the goods at Japan, and that, if at all“, the consignor would be responsible The Courts below also were of the view that the Port Trust need confine itself to the leading marks only and it was not necessary for the Port Trust authorities to tally the goods landed by reference to their brand. On behalf of the plaintiffs it was contended that the bill of lading was prima facie e