2014 (9) TMI 399 - HC - Indian Laws

Loss caused due to the short delivery of the goods - suit for recovery from the appellant/first defendant and the second respondent/second defendant - Whether the appellant is liable to make good the loss caused due to the short delivery of goods, as alleged by the first respondent? - Held that - having regard to the admission made by the first respondent, that the carrier delivered the cargo, entrusted with it, and the shortage of goods occurred, due to theft or pilferage, when the goods were lying in the Madras Port Trust, the appellant cannot be held responsible for the shortage of goods. Hence, the point for consideration is answered in favour of the appellant. The first respondent failed to prove the exact quantity of the cargo sent by the consignor, or, in other words, the correct weight of the cargo sent by the consignor, and having admitted that the entire cargo was discharged and the loss was due to the theft or pilferage at the Madras Port Trust, after the cargo was discharged the appellant cannot be made liable for the loss caused to the first respondent. - Decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
2. Whether the defendants are responsible for the short landing of goods.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest as claimed.
4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation:
The appellant/first defendant argued that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court, however, answered Issue (i) by holding that the suit was not barred by limitation. This finding was not contested further in the appeal, and thus, the suit was deemed to be within the permissible time frame.

2. Whether the defendants are responsible for the short landing of goods:
The plaintiff's case was that 416.810 metric tons of iron were shipped and only 399.240 metric tons were delivered, resulting in a short delivery of 17.570 metric tons. The appellant/first defendant contended that the weight mentioned in the Bill of lading was based on the consignor's declaration and not the actual weight measured by the appellant. The appellant further argued that any loss occurred after the goods were discharged at the Madras Port Trust, implying that the Madras Port Trust should be liable. The Trial Court held that the appellant was liable for the short delivery based on the weighment certificate issued by the Madras Port Trust. However, the High Court found that the first respondent/plaintiff admitted in their communication (Ex.A8) that the entire cargo was delivered by the appellant and any shortage was due to theft or pilferage at the Madras Port Trust. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the appellant was not responsible for the short delivery.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest as claimed:
The Trial Court awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the plaintiff. However, since the High Court found that the appellant was not responsible for the short delivery, the question of interest became moot. Thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to the interest claimed.

4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled:
The Trial Court had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 56,224/- with interest. However, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment, holding that the appellant was not liable for the loss. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief from the appellant.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The High Court held that the appellant was not liable for the short delivery of goods, as the shortage occurred due to theft or pilferage while the goods were in the custody of the Madras Port Trust. The plaintiff's admission in Ex.A8 that the full cargo was delivered by the appellant was pivotal in the High Court's decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →