SWASTIK AGENCY MADRAS Vs. MADRAS PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MESSRS Swastik Agency, Madras, the appellant in this second appeal, is the plaintiff in the suit, O. S. 125 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The appellant imported 80 drums of coconut oil from Singapore, which arrived at madras port per S. S. Rajula on 9-7-1957. The shipping documents were entrusted by the appellant to the clearing agent. The consignment was detained in the Port trust shed by the customs authorities for test purposes till 12-8-1957. On 13-81957 the clearing agent cleared the consignment, and it was noticed that 7 drums out of the said consignment had been tampered with and the oil contained therein had been stolen through holes made in the drums. At the request of the clearing agent a survey of oil from the 7 drums was noticed and those drums were taken delivery of on 21-8-1957. It was found that the total weight of the oil lost was 1494 pounds, the value of which came to Rs. 899-07, calculating the price at Rs. 1348 per ton. The plaintiff claimed in all, a total sum of Rs. 1198-54 representing the value of oil lost, customs duty and excise duty etc. The plaintiff issued a notice to the Port Trust authorities on 24-8-1957 claiming damages from the Port Trust.

(2.) THE first defendant in the suit is the Madras Port Trust and the second defendant is the clearing agent of the plaintiff. The trial Court found that the Port trust authorities had not taken sufficient care of the goods in question, that they were guilty of negligence, and that the theft or the pilfering of the oil was due to the carelessness and negligence of the Port Trust Authorities. It also found that the clearing agent had done his duty, and he was not therefore liable for any portion of the plaintiff's claim. In the end a decree was passed against the Port trust in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1198-54 with subsequent interest from the date of the decree. The suit against the second defendant was dismissed.

(3.) THE Port Trust took up the mater in appeal and the appellate court came to a contrary conclusion for the reasons which shall be dealt with later. The appeal was allowed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. At the same time the appellate court agreed with the finding of the trial court that the Port Trust was guilty of negligence in not having taken proper care of the goods while they were in the custody of the Port Trust authorities. It also accepted the finding of the trial court that no case of negligence had been made out as against the second defendant. In this connection it may be mentioned that the plaintiff did not prefer any appeal or memorandum of cross-objections with regard to the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court as against the second defendant. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal claiming a decree against the Port Trust as well as the clearing agent. Mr. V. Rathnam assisted the Court as amicus curiae on behalf of the clearing agent and placed all the relevant decisions.