K V S SHEIK MAHAMAD RAVUTHAR Vs. BRITISH INDIA STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS MANAGING AGENTS MACKINNON MACKENIZE AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for the recovery or Rs. 2,400 odd, the value of 246 bags of rice, being part of the, rice shipped in Rangoon, in the S.S. "Thorndale," belonging to the first defendant Company for delivery at the port of Tuticorin to the 2nd and 3 plaintiffs, agents of the 1st plaintiff. The goods arrived at Tuticorin and were landed by the Company and placed on the foreshore. About 1098 bags of rice out of the total cargo, belonging to various parties, brought by the ship and placed on the foreshore, were destroyed under the orders of the Municipal authorities on the ground that they had become damaged by rain and unfit for consumption. Among them were the bags with reference to which the present claim is made. That the bags became damaged by rain and liable to destruction is not disputed. Admittedly the monsoon set in from the night of the 27 October, and it continued to rain heavily off and on up to the 30 idem. The landing of the rice cargo had, no doubt, commenced on the 24th, but it was continued even after the rains had set in and until the 30th. Though some default was imputed to the plaintiffs, the District Judge's opinion must be taken to be in their favour, for while he thought there was apathy and negligence on the part of the consignees, speaking generally, he found it impossible to say that the plaintiffs themselves were among those that were in any way to blame. As regards the charge of negligence against the company the District Judge expressed himself thus: There is no evidence that the cargo was put out of the ship during rain, but if it happened to begin raining while the boats 1 were between the ship and shore, the boats naturally went on the wetting received by the bags in these circumstances would have caused no damage had the consignees taken delivery at once. The damage was caused on the foreshore, and the fact that the bags had to"stay there a long time was entirely due to the negligence of consignees, for defendants did all they could to clear the cargo quickly.

(2.) Reading these observations with the conclusion of the Judge that it was impossible to find, negligence on the part of the plaintiffs themselves, the only possible view with reference to the bags in dispute is that they, having got wet while being landed, were allowed to remain on the foreshore in such condition that the wetting ultimately resulted in their being completely damaged, and this without any default on the part of the plaintiffs. The other matters relevant in this connection are (1) that after the bags in question left the ship nothing was done by the company to protect them from exposure to rain either during transit or on the foreshore, and (2) that the company are unable to show the specific date or dates on which they were landed and, if stacked at all, when that was done so as to enable the plaintiffs to take delivery.

(3.) In these circumstances I am of opinion that the company in landing the goods as they did without precautions to prevent damage to them failed to take the same care of the plaintiffs goods as a prudent person would, in similar circumstances, have taken of like goods of his own and that the damage was therefore the result of the company's negligence.