THE EAST AND WEST STEAMSHIP COMP ANY, GEORGE TOWN, MADRAS versus S. K. RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR.

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 03-05-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

May 3. 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
THE EAST AND WEST STEAMSHIP COMP ANY, 
GEORGE TOWN, MADRAS 
v. 
S. K. RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR. 
(And connected appeal) 
( P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, IC N. W ANCHOO and 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Carrier of goods by sea-Loss or damage, meanmg of-Liability 
of carrier-Delivery of goods-Time for-The Indian Carriage of 
Goods Act, r925 (XXVI of r925), Schedule, Art III, para: 6, cl. 3. 
The appellant in the first case (C. A. No. 88/56) and the res-
pondents in the other two cases (C. As. Nos. gr & 92 of 1958) 
were shipping companies carrying goods by sea from one port to 
another. They carried goods of the opposite parties by ships to 
their places of destination but failed to deliver the whole of the 
goods consigned. In the suits brought by the owners of the 
goods for compensation the main question related to the inter-
pretatibn of the 3rd clause of para. 6 of Art. III in the Schedule 
to the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 (XXVI of 1925) 
which runs thus:-
"In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged 
from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is 
brought within one year after the delivery of the goods or the 
date when the goods should have been delivered ". 
In the first case the Madras High Court expressed the opinion 
that the above clause did not provide for the extinction of the 
consignor's right to claim compensation but merely prescribed a 
rule of limitation. It also held that the term in the bill of Jading 
requiring that the claim for compensation should be made within 
one month from the date of arrival of the vessel was repugnant 
to Rule 8 to Art. III of the Schedule and was void. The Bombay 
High Court held that Art. III(6) dealt with all cases of loss or 
damage whether the loss or damage was caused by the deteriora-
tion of the goods or by their non-.delivery and further that the 
words " the loss or damage " included any loss or damage caused 
to the consignee in respect of his claim for compensation from the 
shipping company. It also held that the goods should have been 
delivered as soon as they were landed. 
On appeal by special 
leave: 
Held, that the word "loss" in cl. 3, para. 6 of Art. III in 
the schedule to the Indian Carriage of Goods Act, 1925, meant 
and included any loss caused to a shipper or consignee by reason 
of the inability of the ship or the carrier to deliver part or whole 
of the goods, to whatever reason such failure might be due. 
Spens and another v. The Union Marine Insurance Co. Ltd., 
3 Common Pleas 427, .\iistinguished. 
·• 
--
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
821 
Sandeman & Sons v. Tyzack and Brllnfoot Steamship Co. Ltd., 
[1913] A. C. 680, referred to. 
The words "discharged from liability" were intended to 
mean and did mean that the liability had totally disappeared and 
not only that the remedy as regards the liability had disappeared. 
The date when the goods should have been delivered for the 
purpose of cl. 3, para. 6 of Art. III of the Act was the date 
when the ship by which the gooas were carried left the port of 
delivery. 
The stipulation in the bill of lading requiring claim for 
compensation being made within one month from the date of 
arrival of the ship was null and void. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 88 of 1956. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
decree dated February 11, 1954, of the Madras High 
Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 921 of 1952, 
arising out of the judgment and decree dated Novem-
ber 2, 1951, of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in 
Suit No. 4076 of 1950 (N. T. A. No. 113 of 1951). 
With 
Civil Appeals Nos. 91 and 92 of 1958. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and 
decree dated March 10, 1955, of the Bombay High 
Court in Appeals Nos. 66/X and 67/X of 1954, arising 
out of the judgment and decree dated February 15, 
1954, of the said High Court in Suits Nos. 1693 of 
1949 and 105 of 1950, respectively. 
B. Sen, S. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh, for the 
appellant (in C. A. No. 88 of 1956). 
C.R. Pattabhiraman and Ganapathy Iyer, for res-
pondent (in C. A. No. 88 of 1956). 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, S. N. 
Andley, J.B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath; for the 
appellants (In C. As. Nos. 91 and 92 of 1958). 
G. 
Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent (In C. A. 
No. 91/58). 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and G. Gopalakrishnan, for 
the respondent (In C. A. No. 92 of 58). 
1960. May 3. The Judgment of the Court 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.