Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Carriages Act
Case Laws
1. Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. Skypak Couriers Pvt.
Ltd. ( 2002 ) CPJ 24 (NC)
Facts:
This complaint was filed on 6.4.1992 complaining
deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
party for loss/non delivery of the consignment of
the complainant containing computer hardware
valuing at Rs.36.00 lakhs which was entrusted to
the opposite party who is a common carrier as
defined in the Carriers Act, 1865.
Held:
A condition in a contract, limiting the liability of one party,
though signed by both parties must be construed strictly. The
small and fine print should be clearly discernible and should
draw the pointed attention of the consumer.
Such a term could be in bold print and it should be easily
readable so that a consumer can read and understand it. A
condition in small print would amount to communication
only when the attention of the consumer is specifically drawn
to it.
After considering the relevant material the arbitrator came
to the conclusion that the opposite party was liable to pay
the complainant for the loss of the consignment a sum of
Rs.34,20,000/- and then as noted earlier interest at 18% was
awarded from 10.10.90 till realisation and cost of Rs.50,000/- .
Facts:
Two plaintiffs brought this suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs.
3, 40,243 as damages for non-delivery of 1472 bags of Indian
“biri” tobacco entrusted to the defendant shipping
company for carriage by sea from Bombay to Calcutta,
under eight days of loading between the dates 20th
November 1948 and 27-11-1948, by the defendant's steamer,
S.S. Pasha.
The Pasha left Bombay on or about the 4th December and
arrived at Calcutta on the 24th December 1948 after
stopping en route at Tuticorin and Madras. The defendant
failed to deliver the said cargo of 1472 bags to the plaintiffs
in Calcutta. On 16-3-1949, the defendant called upon the
first plaintiff to clear 212 bags alleged to be part of the
consignment of 1472 bags and also, made an offer of 1260
bags which were no part of the consignment but were
offered in satisfaction of the same under certain terms of the
bill of lading.
The plaintiffs refused to take delivery of 212 bags on the
ground that they were damaged and were useless and
unmerchantable goods of no value and also refused to
accept the offer of 1260 bags on the ground that the goods
were not of the like Kind and quality as the goods of the
plaintiffs. As between the two plaintiffs, it is pleaded that the
first plaintiff is the owner of those 1472 bags of cargo and
that in any event the property in those goods passed to the
first plaintiff by the endorsement of the relative bills of lading
by the second plaintiff in favour of the first plaintiff. The
contract of carriage as contained in the bills of lading was
between the second plaintiff and the defendant. The cargo
of tobacco appeared in the port of Calcutta as a charred
mass and, in fact, steaming,
The plaintiffs' claim for Rs. 3, 40,243 consists of Rs. 2, 25,902/-
as the value of 1,472 bags of Indian Bin tobacco and Rs. 1,
02,331/- as excise duty paid or payable thereupon and
Rupees 12,010 as loss of profit or damage on the basis of the
contract rate or the market rate.
Held:
No attention or care was bestowed on this stack of tobacco
in Hold No. 4 throughout the journey from Bombay to
Calcutta. There was no supervision whatever of this stack of
tobacco during the entire voyage.
No better proof of this negligence or lack of care can be
furnished than by the circumstance that when these goods
arrived in the port of Calcutta, it was only then that they
were found to be steaming which excited one of the ship's
men to explain to one of the ship's officers that it was "fire".
This "fire" or combustion must have been going on for days
with none in the ship to see or attend to. Here again the
evidence of this complete lack of supervision is quite
conclusive on the point
If the loss or damage arises from the neglect, fault or failure
in the duties and obligations as provided in the statutory
Articles or rules then a clause in the bill of lading exempting
the carrier from liability for such loss and damage would be
null and void and of no effect.
Thus, the learned judge ruled in favour of the two plaintiffs
and awarded them the sum of Rs. 2, 40,811/- with interest
and costs. As allowed by the learned trial Judge and dismiss
this appeal with costs.
2. The Carriage by Road Act, 2007
The Act:
Case Laws:
Facts:
Respondent No.3 booked a consignment of
monoblock pumps with the appellant for
transportation from Coimbatore to respondents
No.1 and No.2 at Gwalior in March, 1997. While
the appellant was transporting the consignment in
a truck, there was an accident and the
monoblock pumps were damaged. The
respondents No.1 and 2 2, therefore, did not take
delivery of the 198 damaged monoblock pumps
at Gwalior.
In the circumstances, the appellant returned the
198 damaged monoblock pumps to the
respondent No.3. The respondents No.1 and 2
then filed Complaint No.101 of 1998 before the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, and
their case in the complaint was that they had
paid the price of the consignment to respondent
No.3 and were entitled to Rs.3, 61,131/- towards
the price of the monoblock pumps and damages
of Rs.70, 000/-, loss of profit Rs.14, 000/- as well as
cost of Rs.5, 000/- and interest @ 18% per annum
on the amount claimed by them.
At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum should have directed
the respondent No.3 to return the 198 monoblock
pumps to the appellant when the appellant has
been held liable for the price of the monoblock
pumps to the respondents No.1 and 2, who had
paid for the same to respondent No.3. He
submitted that the appellant cannot be held
liable to pay the price of the monoblock pumps to
respondents No.1 and 2 and at the same time not
entitled to the return of the 198 monoblock pumps
from respondent No.3.
2. Brakes India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. BIC Logistics Ltd 329
of 2010 (Mad HC)
Facts:
In the plaint, it is averred that the first plaintiff has
entrusted certain automobile spare parts to the
defendant, who is a public carrier within the
meaning of Carriers Act, 1865 at Tamil Nadu. The
same has to be transported to M.V.Axles Ltd,
Jamshedpur. The goods have been insured by the
first plaintiff with the second plaintiff (insurer).
The goods have not been received by the
consignee and subsequently it is found that the
driver and cleaner of the container have been
murdered. Since the defendant has failed to
deliver the goods to the consignee, the
defendant is liable to pay the suit amount. Under
the said circumstances, the defendant has not
been able to deliver the goods due to murder of
driver and cleaner. The present suit has been
instituted for the relief sought therein.
The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/plaintiffs has argued to the effect that
the goods in question have not been plundered
by interstate enemies, thus subject to the
provisions of Sec 17 of the Carriage by Road Act,
2007.