Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
M/s. Genshipping Pacific Line Pte Ltd., Rep. by their steamer agents, M/s. A.S. Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Thangam Traders, Rep. by Subrogee @ Power agents, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Virudhunagar & Others - Respondents
S.A. Nos. 1245 to 1247 of 2007 & M.P. Nos. 1, 1 & 1 of 2007
Decided On : 07-09-2021
Limitation Act - section 14 - Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 - Code of Civil Procedure,1973 - Section 100 - Seeking damages – consignments - Appellant in all three second appeals is first defendant in suits O.S. on file of learned II Assistant Judge City Civil Court first and second respondents are plaintiffs and the third respondent is the second defendant in the respective suits and is a formal party - Seeking damages for damage to the cargo which arrived at the Port of Chennai on by the vessel - Respective first plaintiff in all three suits are importers of Electrolytic tin plates and the second plaintiff is the insurance company which insured the cargo which were imported by the respective first plaintiff - According to respective first plaintiff they immediately informed damage to their respective cargo to steamer agents of the vessel and their insurance company who is second plaintiff in all three suits - On receipt of complaints from respective first plaintiff second plaintiff insurance company surveyors to survey losses - After inspection of respective consignments and Company surveyors submitted their report on – Held, decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for Appellant/first defendant namely (a) A single bench judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Limited and another Singapore Airlines Limited and another reported in A Single Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of British Airways have no bearing for the facts of instant case as instant case deals with carriage of goods by sea whereas in the aforesaid decisions it relates to carriage of goods by Air - Further in the aforesaid decisions plaintiffs chose a wrong forum, whereas in case on hand respective plaintiffs had chosen the correct forum at the time of institution of the consumer complaints - In both the decisions referred to supra Court has observed that having chosen a wrong forum to make a claim, the plaintiffs cannot take advantage of their own wrong, whereas in the case on hand facts are totally different as on the date of institution of consumer complaints said consumer complaints were infact maintainable in law and only after subsequent decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oberai Forwarding Agencys case reported in referred to supra there was a change of law and only thereafter plaintiffs pursuant to the order passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were constrained to file civil suits for same relief – Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Heard through Video conferencing)
(Prayer in S.A.No.1245 of 2017: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Judge, Chennai, Fast Tract Court No.II, dated 23.03.2007 and passed in A.S.No.74 of 2006 confirming the decree and judgment passed by the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 26.09.2005 passed in O.S.No.5189 of 2000.
S.A.No.1246 of 2017: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Judge, Chennai, Fast Tract Court No.II, dated 23.03.2007 and passed in A.S.No.75 of 2006 confirming the decree and judgment passed by the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 26.09.2005 passed in O.S.No.5188 of 2000.
S.A.No.1247 of 2017: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Judge, Chennai, Fast Tract Court No.II, dated 23.03.2007 and passed in A.S.No.76 of 2006 confirming the decree and judgment passed by the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 26.09.2005 passed in O.S.No.5170 of 2000.)
1. These second appeals raise an important question of law as to whether section 14 of Limitation Act applies to special enactments like Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 or any other special law relating to carriage of goods by sea.
2. The Appellant in all the three second appeals is the first defendant in the suits O.S.Nos.5189, 5188 & 5170 of 2000 on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The first and second respondents are the plaintiffs and the third respondent is the second defendant in the respective suits and is a formal party.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the respective suits.
4. All the three suits were filed seeking damages for the damage to the cargo which arrived at the Port of Chennai on 09.06.1995 by the vessel KBANJ 0669. The respective first plaintiff in all the three suits are importers of Electrolytic tin plates and the second plaintiff is the insurance company which insured the cargo which were imported by the respective first plaintiff. According to the respective first plaintiff, they immediately informed the damage to their respective cargo to the steamer agents of the vessel and their insurance company who is the second plaintiff in all the three suits. On receipt of the complaints from the respective first plaintiff, the second plaintiff insurance company appointed M/s.Wilson & Company, the surveyors to survey the losses. After inspection of the respective consignments, M/s.Wilson and Company, the surveyors submitted their report on 25.10.1995 giving the details of the damages as well as the losses suffered by the respective first plaintiff as a result of the damage to their respective consignments.
5. The Chennai Port Trust, the second defendant in all the three suits have also issued Cargo Landing Remarks Certificate on 26.09.1995. A claim letter dated 26.10.1995 was sent by the respective first plaintiff to the first defendant. On 12.01.1996, another letter was sent by the respective first plaintiff to the first defendant claiming damages for the damage caused by the vessel to their respective consignments. On 08.02.1996, the second plaintiff insurance company settled the dues of the respective first plaintiff and the respective first plaintiff have also issued subrogation letters in favour of the second plaintiff insurance company. The respective plaintiffs in all the three suits filed three separate consumer complaints against the defendants on 03.05.1996 before the District Consumer Forum, Chennai in O.P.Nos.144, 143 & 142 of 1996. On 04.05.1998, the District Consumer Forum, Chennai allowed the complaints filed by the respective plai
The suit was declared time-barred under the Hague Rules and the Indian Limitation Act, as it was not filed within the one-year limitation period from the date of non-delivery of goods.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal construction of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in favor of consumers, the enforceability of a decree passed by the Civil Court throu....
The time spent pursuing an inappropriate remedy can be excluded from the period of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
The liability of carriers for damages arises during transportation unless they prove lack of negligence; rights under a subrogation agreement permit maintenance of a complaint by an insurer.
The court affirmed that the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act mandates a year for filing claims, after which liability is completely extinguished, barring extensions.
The court upheld that a claim for loss due to short delivery is barred if not filed within one year as mandated by the Hague Rules, confirming the definitive nature of liability discharge.
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
