1960 (5) TMI 38 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "loss" in Clause 3 of Paragraph 6 of Article III of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.
2. Whether Clause 3 of Paragraph 6 of Article III prescribes a rule of limitation or provides for the extinction of the right to compensation.
3. Determination of the date when the goods "should have been delivered" under Clause 3 of Paragraph 6 of Article III.
4. Validity of the stipulation in the bill of lading requiring notice of claim within a specified period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Term "Loss":
The Supreme Court was tasked with defining the term "loss" as used in Clause 3 of Paragraph 6 of Article III of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The Court concluded that the term "loss" includes any loss caused to a shipper or consignee due to the inability of the ship or carrier to deliver part or whole of the goods, regardless of the reason for such failure. The Court emphasized that "loss" should be understood in a broad sense to include both the total loss of goods and the loss to the owner due to non-delivery.

2. Rule of Limitation vs. Extinction of Right:
The Court examined whether Clause 3 of Paragraph 6 of Article III merely prescribes a limitation period or also extinguishes the right to compensation. It was held that the phrase "discharged from all liability" indicates a total extinction of liability, not merely a barring of the remedy. This interpretation ensures uniformity across different jurisdictions and avoids varying results based on local limitation laws.

3. Date When Goods "Should Have Been Delivered":
The Supreme Court determined that the date when the goods "should have been delivered" is the date when the ship, by which the goods were contracted to be carried, leaves the port at which delivery was to be made. This point of time is fixed and ascertainable, providing a clear and consistent basis for calculating the one-year period within which a suit must be brought.

4. Validity of Notice of Claim Stipulation:
The Court addressed the validity of a stipulation in the bill of lading requiring a notice of claim within a specified period. It was held that such stipulations are void as they offend Paragraph 8 of Article III, which prohibits clauses that lessen the liability of the carrier or ship otherwise than as provided in the Rules. This provision ensures that carriers cannot contract out of their statutory liabilities through such stipulations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeals Nos. 91 and 92 of 1958, confirming the Bombay High Court's dismissal of the suits on the grounds that they were not brought within the one-year period specified in Clause 3 of Paragraph 6 of Article III. The stipulation in the bill of lading requiring notice of claim within thirty days was deemed void. Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1956 was dismissed as infructuous since the decree passed by the Small Causes Court had become final. The Court's interpretation ensures uniform application of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and protects the rights of shippers and consignees while providing clarity on the obligations of carriers.