HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED Vs. TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, MADRAS PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three suits are instituted by the Home Insurance Company, Limited, a company incorporated in the United States of America against the Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras for damages in respect of three consignments of five hundred bales, two hundred bales and fifty bales of American cotton delivered to the defendant by the steamer s.s. 'Jalapanki' towards the end of April, 1952. The three suits were tried together as common questions of law and facts arise. The pleadings in the three suits are identical.

(2.) Messrs. Finberg Trading Company, Dallas, Texas, in the United States of America consigned to Messrs. Baijnath Gangadhar & Company, Limited, Bombay, the three consignments of high density American cotton by the steamer "Queen City" towards the end of January, 1952, for carriage to the port of Madras. The said goods were transferred at Bombay to s.s. 'Jalapanki' which arrived at Madras on the 27th of April, 1952. The landing of the goods was completed on 4th May, 1952. Applications for the clearance and survey of the goods on behalf of the consignees were filed in the office of the Port Commissioners of Madras on 12th May, 1952. The landing of the goods was done by stevedores on behalf of the shipowner and the Port Trust took charge of the goods after landing.

(3.) The safe carriage of the goods was insured with the plaintiff company under a policy of insurance effected by the shippers on behalf of the consignees. It is alleged that the defendant Port Trust after receiving the goods into their custody negligently and wrongfully stored the goods in the open in the harbour premises without covering them with tarpaulins for protection against adverse weather conditions. On the 18th May, 1952, and the following three days there was heavy rain in Madras and the goods got drenched with rain water and considerable damage was caused consequently to the cargo. There was a claim by the consignees in a sum of Rs. 41,537-4-0 in respect of the cargo concerned in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1957, Rs. 13,215-14-0, in respect of the cargo in Civil Suit No. 5 of 1957, a sum of Rs. 3,339-1-0 in respect of the cargo covered by Civil Suit No. 6 of 1957. These claims in respect of the damage sustained by the consignees and also the fees which they had to pay for survey of the goods, were paid by the plaintiff company to the consignees after due enquiry as the claims were valid and unanswerable since the defendants the bailee of the goods were guilty of gross negligence and breach of duty as bailees. The claims were paid by the plaintiff company on the 18th September, 1952, in respect of the cargo covered by Civil Suit No. 4 of 1957 and on 7th November, 1952, in respect of the cargo covered by Civil Suit No. 5 of 1957 and on 31st October, 1952, in respect of Civil Suit No. 6 of 1957. The plaintiff, it is alleged, became subrogated in law to the consignee's rights against the defendant and the sum paid by the plaintiff company to the consignee together with interest at six per cent, per annum from the date of payment up to the date of the plaint are claimed from the defendant in these three suits.