2002 (6) TMI 511 - HC - Customs

Warehoused goods at port - Destruction by fire - Damages - Destruction by fire - Whether act of god

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the Madras Port Trust for the destruction of goods in a fire accident.
2. Status of the Port Trust as a bailee under the Major Port Trusts Act.
3. Applicability of the Customs Act in determining the liability.
4. Precautions and safeguards taken by the Port Trust.
5. Argument of the fire being an act of God.
6. Maintainability of suits filed by the Insurance Company.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of the Madras Port Trust for the destruction of goods in a fire accident:
The primary issue is whether the Madras Port Trust is liable for the destruction of goods stored in its warehouse due to a fire accident on 7-6-1982. The court concluded that the Port Trust is liable for the loss that occurred to the goods entrusted to it by various plaintiffs as a result of the fire accident.

2. Status of the Port Trust as a bailee under the Major Port Trusts Act:
The court examined the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Major Port Trusts Act. It was determined that the Port Trust continues to be a bailee for the goods warehoused with it. Section 42(2) states that the Board may take charge of the goods and issue a receipt, making them responsible as a bailee under Sections 151, 152, and 161 of the Indian Contract Act. The Port Trust's responsibility as a bailee includes taking care of the goods as a man of ordinary prudence would take of his own goods.

3. Applicability of the Customs Act in determining the liability:
The court considered the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, including Sections 46, 47, 49, and 62. It was argued that the Customs Act does not impose liability on the warehouse keeper (Port Trust) as specified under the Major Port Trusts Act. However, the court concluded that the Port Trust, being a statutory bailee under the Major Port Trusts Act, is liable for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods warehoused with it, despite the Customs Act's provisions.

4. Precautions and safeguards taken by the Port Trust:
The Port Trust contended that all necessary precautions were taken to safeguard the goods. However, the court found that the evidence provided by the Port Trust was insufficient to prove that adequate precautions were taken. The court noted that the Port Trust did not maintain a register for periodic inspections, and there was contradictory evidence regarding the condition of the warehouse and electrical installations.

5. Argument of the fire being an act of God:
The Port Trust argued that the fire was an act of God, and therefore, they should not be held liable. The court rejected this argument, stating that to qualify as an act of God, the occurrence must be a direct, violent, sudden, and irresistible act of nature. There was no evidence to suggest that the fire was caused by natural causes or that it could not have been foreseen or prevented by human action.

6. Maintainability of suits filed by the Insurance Company:
The Port Trust argued that the suits filed by the Insurance Company, claiming subrogation rights, were not maintainable. The court found no merit in this argument, noting that the Insurance Company was arrayed as a co-plaintiff along with the importer of goods. The court rejected the contention that the Insurance Company could not maintain the suit in their own name without reference to the person assured.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all the appeals, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, holding the Madras Port Trust liable for the loss caused to the goods under its custody due to the fire accident. The court found no reason to interfere with the judgment and concluded that the Port Trust failed to prove that adequate precautions were taken or that the fire was an act of God. The court also upheld the maintainability of the suits filed by the Insurance Company.

← Previous Next →