TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the responsibility of a carrier and when does his responsibility ceases, while carrying a FCL/FCL container under shipping terms? B. Can a carrier be held liable for the negligence of the consignee's agent while destuffing the container on the basis of a different contract made between the consignee and their agents and in which the carrier was not involved? C. Can a carrier be held liable for damages caused to the cargo in an FCL/FCL container which occurred during destuffing of the container after the container was already delivered to the consignee in good order and condition and the said destuffing was done by another party on behalf of the consignee? D. &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant/first defendant is not permissible. The appellant instead of discharging the cargo at Chennai Port, did the same at Mumbai Port. Thereafter, through the rails it was taken to the premises of defendant No. 2 for clearance and the plaintiff received the consignment in a damaged condition. Since the goods were found in a damaged condition and pursuant to the report of the Surveyor, the suit has been laid for damages. 3. Both the Courts below found that the appellant has acted contrary to the Bill of Lading. It is the appellant company, who engaged the service of the second defendant and thus, it is responsible. Reliance has been made on the evidence of DW1, who deposed on behalf of the appellant in this regard and the versio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e any application. 6. Learned counsel for the second defendant would submit that they had duly complied with the decree amount. 7. A perusal of the Bill of Lading dated 19-8-1995 leaves no doubt that no transshipment is allowed. It is also not in dispute that the destination of the goods is Chennai Port Trust. Thus, for the reasons known, the appellant on its own volition, carried the goods to Mumbai Port, when the agreement no longer permits clearance by rails. The appellant/first defendant clearly admits that the discharge port is 'Chennai Port'. He has stated that as per Ex.A6-Bill of Lading, the goods are to be handed over to the plaintiff by the appellant being its duty. There is no reference that such goods can be taken to....