Carrier liability for cargo damage affirmed where transport breached the bill of lading and unauthorized handling caused loss.

A carrier remained liable for cargo damage after transporting goods contrary to the bill of lading, which prohibited transshipment and required discharge at Chennai Port. The carrier instead moved the cargo to Mumbai and arranged rail transport to Chennai without informing the consignee, and the damage arose after this unauthorized handling through an agent engaged on its behalf. Reliance on the Customs Act and the Major Port Trusts Act failed because the dispute arose from breach of the carriage contract, not lawful port or customs authorization. The concurrent findings of fact disclosed no substantial question of law in second appeal, so the decree for the plaintiffs was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the carrier was liable for damage to the cargo after transporting it contrary to the bill of lading and entrusting it to the consignee's agent, despite reliance on the Customs Act and the Major Port Trusts Act.

Analysis: The bill of lading prohibited transshipment and identified Chennai Port as the discharge port. The carrier nevertheless carried the goods to Mumbai Port and then arranged rail transport to Chennai, without informing the consignee. The damage occurred after the carrier had acted contrary to the contract and through an agent engaged on its behalf. The statutory provisions relied upon did not assist the carrier because the dispute arose from breach of the contractual terms governing carriage, not from any lawful port or customs authorization. In second appeal, no substantial question of law arose against the concurrent findings of fact.

Conclusion: The carrier was held liable for the damage and the challenge to the concurrent decree failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A carrier that acts in breach of the bill of lading and causes or facilitates damage through unauthorized handling remains liable for the resulting loss, and statutory port or customs provisions do not displace that contractual responsibility in the absence of lawful authorization.

---