Bill of lading "said to contain" clause shifts proof of actual loading and bars short-delivery liability without custody loss evidence

A "said to contain" endorsement in a bill of lading does not amount to an admission by the carrier of the quantity stated by the shipper, so the shipper must prove actual loading of the declared cartons before short-delivery liability can arise. On the facts described, the evidence did not establish shipment of 250 cartons, and liability was not fixed on that basis. The Port Trust was not liable because the container remained sealed in its custody and no tampering or loss was shown before transfer. CONCOR was also not liable because the seal was intact on receipt, customs inspection occurred in the presence of the clearing agent, and no negligence or custodial loss was proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the endorsement "said to contain" in the bill of lading excluded acceptance of the quantity declared by the shipper and placed the burden on the plaintiffs to prove actual shipment of 250 cartons; (ii) Whether the Madras Port Trust was liable for the alleged short delivery; (iii) Whether CONCOR was liable for the alleged short delivery.

Issue (i): Whether the endorsement "said to contain" in the bill of lading excluded acceptance of the quantity declared by the shipper and placed the burden on the plaintiffs to prove actual shipment of 250 cartons.

Analysis: The endorsement in the bill of lading was treated as a protective clause for the carrier, meaning that the carrier did not admit or accept the number of cartons stated by the consignor. In such a case, the plaintiffs were required to prove by acceptable evidence that 250 cartons were actually loaded, and the evidence adduced did not establish that fact.

Conclusion: The endorsement did not amount to an admission by the carriers of the quantity stated, and the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving actual shipment of 250 cartons.

Issue (ii): Whether the Madras Port Trust was liable for the alleged short delivery.

Analysis: The container reached the port with the seal intact and was thereafter moved to CONCOR, where customs inspection was conducted and the seal was broken and resealed in the presence of the clearing agent. The pleadings and evidence did not show any tampering or loss while the container was in the custody of the Port Trust, and the inspection at the CONCOR premises could not fasten liability on the Port Trust.

Conclusion: The Madras Port Trust was not liable for the alleged short delivery.

Issue (iii): Whether CONCOR was liable for the alleged short delivery.

Analysis: The seal was found intact when the container reached CONCOR, and the customs authorities broke it open only for inspection in the presence of the clearing agent, after which it was resealed. The shortage was noticed only after destuffing, and there was no evidence of tampering or negligence by CONCOR while the container was in its custody. On these facts, liability could not be imposed on CONCOR as bailee.

Conclusion: CONCOR was not liable for the alleged short delivery.

Final Conclusion: The appellants were not responsible for the alleged shortage, and the decree against them could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a bill of lading contains a "said to contain" endorsement, the shipper must prove the actual quantity loaded before liability for short delivery can be fixed, and liability cannot be fastened on a custodian in the absence of evidence of tampering or loss during its custody.

---