Clause 18 of the bill of lading conditions, which stated that the carrier did not represent the accuracy of the quantity of cargo furnished by the shipper, was valid and applicable.

ABDUL HADI, J.

1. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the dismissal of their suit O.S. No. 195 of 1981 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore, for a sum of Rs. 3,56,649.93, said to represent the value of 205 metric tons of urea, shortlanded in the transhipment of 16011 metric tons of urea in bulk from the port of Kenai, Alaska by vessel M.V. Gladiolus, to the port of Cuddalore, as per the suit bill of lading, Ex. A2 dated 5.7.1980.

2. The plaint allegations may be summarised as follows:— The 1st defendants are the owners of the abovesaid vessel and the 2nd defendant are the disponent owners of the said vessel and carriers of the abovesaid urea and the 3rd defendant are the charterers (consignors) of the said goods by the said vessel and the said cargo has to be delivered to the consignee, the 1st plaintiff at Cuddalore Port. The 2nd plaintiff is the handling agent of the 1st plaintiff. The 4th defendant is the agent of defendants 1 to 3. The abovesaid consignment in bulk was shipped in apparent good order and condition from the abovesaid port of Kenai to India. The 2nd defendant issued bills of lading on behalf of the 1st defendant in July, 1980, agreeing to deliver the said consignment in like good order and condition, in accordance with the contract of carriage between the shipper (charterer or consignor) and the ship owner, at Cuddalore, the port of discharge to the consignee. The Master of the vessel has also certified that the said consignment had been received on board the abovesaid vessel. The vessel arrived at the port of Cuddalore on 29.7.1980, commenced discharge of cargo on 5.8.1980 and completed the discharge on 3.9.1980. The 2nd plaintiff arranged for the clearance of the said cargo. While taking delivery of the said cargo, the plaintiffs found that the vessel had discharged only 15806 metric tons as per the draft survey conducted at the port of discharge. Thus, the vessel had shortlanded 205 metric tons of urea. The plaintiffs initially claimed from the 4th defendant a sum of Rs. 6,90,209.25 as per the outturn statement, which showed that the vessel had shortlanded 405.831 metric tons. The plaintiffs subsequently restricted their claim to 205 metric tons as per the draft survey report which is more reliable and claimed accordingly only Rs. 3,56,649.93. The plaintiffs are entitled to receive the said sum from the defendants. The defendants have neither repudiated their claim, nor accepted the same. The plaintiffs are also entitled to receive from the defendants another sum of Rs. 8,000/- towards the extra expenditure incurred by the plaintiffs for digging and loosening of 8000 metric tons of caked cargo from the vessel. The defendants were negligent and failed to make the said vessel fit and safe for the reception, carriage and preservation of the abovesaid cargo. Hence, the claim for the abovesaid sum with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

3. Defendants 2 and 4 alone filed written statement. Defendants 1 and 3 remained ex parte. The written statement of defendants 2 and 4 may be summarised as follows, in the light of the argument advanced before us: 4th defendant never acted as agent of defendants 1 and 3. Defendants 2 and 3 entered into a Charterparty on 18.6.1980 for the carriage of the abovesaid urea in bulk in the abovesaid vessel and accordingly the consignment was loaded on board at Kenai. Under Clause IV of the Charterparty, the cargo was to be loaded, stowed, trimmed and dishcarged by the charterers (3rd defendant) free of risk and expense to the vessel. So, the charterers employed their own stevedor labour for the loading of cargo and defendants 2 and 4 had no part to play in the said operation. Defendants 2 and 4, therefore deny that 16011 metric tons of urea were entrusted to the 2nd defendant, the carrier. As the cargo was carried on “FIO” terms, the bill of lading was issued on the basis of declarations made by the shippers (charterers). The carrier (2nd defendant) was not aw