Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
M/s. Apten Forgings Private Ltd. & Another - Plaintiffs
Versus
Genshipping Pacific Line Pvt. Ltd. Singapore - Defendant
C.S. No. 128 of 2002
Decided On : 01-09-2016
Negligence - Liability of Sea Carrier - Hague Visby Rules - [Negligence] - [Liability of Sea Carrier] - [Hague Visby Rules, Article IV Rule 5(a) and (e)] - The court discussed the negligence of the sea carrier and the liability under the Hague Visby Rules. It found that the damage to the consignment was caused due to the negligence of the stevedores and not the defendant sea carrier. The court also held that the liability of the defendant sea carrier was limited under the Hague Visby Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for the recovery of money with interest by the first plaintiff, a Private Limited Company, and the second plaintiff, a General Insurer, against the defendant, a Private Limited Company incorporated in Singapore. The suit pertained to the damage and consequential loss sustained by the first plaintiff's cargo during transit and prior to discharge into the custody of the Chennai Port Trust.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the damage to the consignment was caused due to the negligence of the stevedores and not the defendant sea carrier. It also held that the liability of the defendant sea carrier was limited under the Hague Visby Rules.
Issues: The issues framed by the court included whether the defendant as an ocean carrier can be held liable for damage caused to goods by the stevedore, whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, whether the liability of the defendant is only from port to port and not warehouse to warehouse, and whether the defendant is entitled to limit its liability as per the Hague Visby Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the damage to the consignment was caused due to the negligence of the stevedores and not the defendant sea carrier. It also found that the liability of the defendant sea carrier was limited under the Hague Visby Rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit, ruling in favor of the defendant.
1. The suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.37,46,425/- with interest.
2. The first plaintiff is a Private Limited Company dealing with manufacturing of Steel Forgings for the automobile industry having their factory in Bangalore. The second plaintiff is the General Insurer, a Public Limited Company, having its office in Chennai. The defendant is a Private Limited Company incorporated in Singapore, carrying on business in Chennai, through the Local Steamer M/s. A.S. Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai.
3. The first plaintiff purchased from M/s. Chin Fong Machine Industrial Company Ltd., Taiwan, China, Chin-Fong Brand 1600 Ton Gear Drive Hot Forging Mechanical Press complete with standard SPEC and parts valued F.O.B, Taiwan, US Dollars 4,90,000.00, as per their commercial invoice dated 02.10.2000. The said mechanical forging press was packed in 10 different cases as per the packaging list dated 02.10.2000. The said cargo of 10 wooden boxes were shipped on board in the Vessel M.V. KAMNIK owned and chartered by the defendant herein, at Keelung Port, Taiwan, for safe carriage and discharge at Chennai, in the same apparent good order and condition. The defendant, who is the Sea Carrier also issued a clean on board Bill of Lading acknowledging the entrustment of the said cargo in the same apparent good order and condition, thereby undertaking to deliver the said cargo in the same apparent good order and condition.
4. The first plaintiff, the owner of the suit consignment at all relevant times were entitled to take delivery of the said cargo as the holder in due course as per the Bill of Lading dated 04.10.2000. The vessel M.V.KAMNIK arrived at the Port of Chennai on 18.10.2000 and commenced its delivery/discharge operations. The Chennai Port Trust took custody of the suit cargo, annotated them as PBKN (Planks Broken) and CFO (Contents Falling Out) thereby indicating the damage to the suit cargo, while in transit and prior to discharge into the custody of the Chennai Port Trust. The clearing and forwarding agent of the first plaintiff notified the defendant's legal agent on 21.10.2000 about the damaged condition of the package Nos.4, 6 and 9, which were lying in the wharf in South Quay II. The damaged cases were said to have been discharged into the custody of the Chennai Port Trust during the third shift on 20.10.2000. The clearing and forwarding agent also notified the surveyors of the defendant and that of the second plaintiff, namely the Insurer. A survey was conducted on 26.12.2000.
5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the damaged discharge of the suit cargo and the consequential loss sustained by the first plaintiff is only as a result of the failure on the part of the defendant's sea carrier, to care for, carry and deliver the suit consignment, in the same apparent good order and condition, in which, it was entrusted to them at the port of shipment. The plaintiffs claim that the damage and pecuniary loss to the plaintiffs' cargo was due to the failure on the part of the sea carrier. The wooden cases nos.4 and 9, out of the 10 cases shipped, were landed in a broken condition, with the contents extensively damaged. Though Case No.6 was landed in a damaged condition, its contents were safe. Case No.1 was damaged in a road accident enroute Bangalore and was repaired locally.
6. Based on the survey report, the first plaintiff claim that they had to incur US $ 99,000.00 towards replacement of the contents of case nos.4 and 9. The clearing and forwarding agents of the first plaintiff lodged claim with the defendant, vide letter dated 11.12.2000. But the defendant failed and neglected to comply with the same. However, the second plaintiff, as Insurer of the cargo, indemnified the first plaintiff, by paying a sum of Rs.37,46,425/-, as per the first plaintiff's claim letter dated 08.01.2001. The first plaintiff also had executed a letter of subrogation, special power of attorney, in favour of the second plaintiff, under Sect
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
