1989 (4) TMI 234 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant's claim was barred by the law of limitation.
2. The responsibility of the Port Commissioners for the pilferage of goods.
3. The applicability of Section 113 of the Calcutta Port Trust Act.
4. The impact of acknowledgment of liability on the limitation period.
5. The interpretation of the cause of action and its accrual date.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appellant's claim was barred by the law of limitation:
The primary issue in the appeal was whether the appellant's claim was barred by the law of limitation. The Court examined Section 113 of the Calcutta Port Trust Act, which mandates that the owner must remove the goods within five clear working days from the time of landing unless there is a fault on the part of the Port Commissioners. The Court found that the appellant's right to take delivery arose on 27th January 1967, not earlier when the goods landed in November 1966. The Court held that the limitation period should be calculated from the date the goods were made ready for delivery, which was 27th January 1967. Consequently, the Court determined that the appellant's suit was not barred by the law of limitation.

2. The responsibility of the Port Commissioners for the pilferage of goods:
The Court analyzed the responsibility of the Port Commissioners under Section 112(1) of the Calcutta Port Trust Act, which stipulates that the Commissioners are liable for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods while in their possession, akin to the responsibility of a bailee under Sections 151, 152, and 161 of the Contract Act of 1872. The Court found that the Port Commissioners failed to take the necessary care of the goods as an ordinary prudent person would under similar circumstances. The machinery was pilfered while in the custody of the Port Commissioners, indicating a breach of their duty of care. Therefore, the Commissioners were held responsible for the loss.

3. The applicability of Section 113 of the Calcutta Port Trust Act:
Section 113(1) and (2) of the Calcutta Port Trust Act were pivotal in determining the liability and responsibility for the goods. Sub-section (1) requires the Commissioners to take charge of the goods immediately upon landing, while sub-section (2) imposes the duty on the owner to remove the goods within five clear working days, provided there is no fault on the part of the Commissioners. The Court concluded that the provision did not apply in this case because the goods were not in a condition to be removed due to the fault of the Port Commissioners, who admitted the pilferage from their shed.

4. The impact of acknowledgment of liability on the limitation period:
The Court considered the effect of acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The acknowledgment in writing by the Port Commissioners extended the limitation period. The Court referred to the case of Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International, where the Supreme Court emphasized that public authorities should not rely on technical pleas to defeat legitimate claims. The acknowledgment of the pilferage by the Port Commissioners in their correspondence was deemed sufficient to extend the limitation period.

5. The interpretation of the cause of action and its accrual date:
The Court analyzed the accrual of the cause of action, determining that it arose on 27th January 1967, when the appellant was informed that the goods were ready for delivery, albeit in a pilfered state. The Court distinguished the case from Trustees, Bombay Port v. Premier Automobiles, where the cause of action arose from short delivery. Here, the cause of action arose when the appellant discovered the pilferage. The Court emphasized that the landing of an empty case without the machinery did not constitute knowledge of the landing of the goods, thus the cause of action arose only when the appellant was notified of the pilferage.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the appellant's suit was not barred by the law of limitation, holding the Port Commissioners responsible for the pilferage of the goods. The appeal was allowed, and a decree for Rs. 28,257.22 was passed, with no order for costs or interim interest, but the decretal amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.