2016 (8) TMI 1535 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of this Court to try the suit as the contract of carriage - Principal-agent relationship - existence of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant or not - Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 - HELD THAT - As per the three presumptions listed under Section 230 to the exception to the rule that an agent who acts on behalf of the principal is not personally liable the presumption to support a contract to the contrary would be whether contract is made by a agent for the sale or purchase of goods for a merchant residing abroad or whether the agent does not disclose the name of the principal and lastly when the principal though discloses cannot be sued - Here in this case the respondent/defendant signed the document in the capacity as an agent and also disclosed the principal by mentioning in the document itself as a destination agent. Thus the respondent/defendant disclosed its principal as freightcan Global Inc NJ 00837. In the present case there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant as the defendant signed in the bill of lading only as an agent of the Freightcan Global Inc. In Ex. A.7 the defendant is not shown in any capacity except signing the bill on behalf of Freightcan Global Inc and Freightcan Global Inc alone is shown as destination agent. Therefore existence of any contract between the plaintiff and the defendant does not arise at all. The learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the suit and this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court - appeal suit dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court
2. Privity of Contract
3. Liability of the Agent
4. Applicability of US Law and Custom
5. Maintainability of the Suit in the Name of Proprietary Concern
6. Claim of Insurance

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The defendant argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction as the contract of carriage was governed by the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, and only US courts had jurisdiction. The bill of lading (Clause 3) stipulated that disputes should be resolved in the jurisdiction where the carrier has its principal place of business, which is the USA. The court concluded that the present suit filed in Chennai against the defendant, an agent of the carrier, was not maintainable.

2. Privity of Contract:
The defendant contended there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, as the booking and delivery were handled by Time Scan Logistics Pvt., Ltd., and the defendant acted only as an agent. The court found that the defendant signed the bill of lading (Ex. A.7) as an agent for Freightcan Global Inc., and thus, there was no direct contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

3. Liability of the Agent:
The court referred to Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states that an agent cannot personally enforce nor be bound by contracts on behalf of the principal unless the principal is undisclosed or cannot be sued. The court noted that the defendant disclosed its principal, Freightcan Global Inc., and signed the bill of lading in the capacity as an agent. Therefore, the defendant could not be personally liable.

4. Applicability of US Law and Custom:
The defendant argued that under US law, the consignee could take delivery without surrendering the original bill of lading, and preventing delivery would be a serious offense. The court acknowledged that the bill of lading included a clause (Clause 3) that required the application of US law and jurisdiction. The court agreed that the plaintiff, having accepted the bill of lading, was bound by its terms, including the jurisdiction clause.

5. Maintainability of the Suit in the Name of Proprietary Concern:
The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar, which held that a suit by or against a proprietary concern or its proprietor is maintainable under Order 30 Rule 10 CPC. Therefore, the suit in the name of the proprietary concern was permissible.

6. Claim of Insurance:
The court noted that the issue of the insurance claim raised by the plaintiff was not necessary to address in light of the other findings. The document related to the insurance claim (Ex. P.1) was marked subject to objection and was not proved as per Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. There was no denial of the insurance claim by the plaintiff during the cross-examination of D.W. 1.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment and decree, which dismissed the suit for recovery of money and compensation. The court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's decision.