- (1.) AS common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in all these revision petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) ALL these revision petitions are filed under Sec.18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Facts leading to the presentation of these revision petitions are as under: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (for shot HAL), a Government of India Undertaking imported certain spare parts for its Aircraft Division from foreign suppliers. These goods were duly insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., (for short Insurer). The imported goods landed in Bangalore Airport on 4.6.2000. The Mysore Sales International Limited, (for short MSIL) had been appointed as a custodian under Sec.45(1) of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the goods imported and landed in Bangalore Airport which has been duly notified as a Customs Airport, as required under Sec.7 of the Act. The good imported by HAL which reached Bangalore Airport on 4.6.2000 came to the custody of the MSIL on the same day. The Air Cargo Complex maintained and managed by MSIL had been notified as customs area within the meaning of Sec.2(11) of the Act, as, such goods are required to be stored in the custom area only. The goods imported by HAL and stored in the Air Cargo. Complex maintained by the MSIL, was destroyed in a fire accident that occurred on 5.6.2000. Therefore, the Importer viz., HAL secured non delivery certificate from the custodian MSIL and lodged its claim with its Insurer. The Insurer, after satisfying itself about the correctness of the claim and also the destruction of the imported goods in a fire accident while in possession of the custodian viz., MSIL, satisfied the claim of the HAL. At the same time, the Insurer obtained a letter of subrogation from the HAL to claim damages from the person responsible for the destruction of the imported goods. Thereafter, the Insurer issued notices to the MSIL calling upon the MSIL to compensate the value of the goods imported by HAL which were destroyed in the fire accident. The MSIL refuted the claim inter alia contending that there is no privity of contract between it and the Importer or the Insurer and therefore, it is not liable to pay any damages. It also contended that as per the public notice issued by the customs authority, its liability is limited only to 20 U.S. Dollars per Kilogram or the value of the imported goods whichever is less and if the MSIL is held to be liable, its liability is limited only to that extent. It also contended that though it was appointed as the custodian under Sec.45(1) of the Act, the Customs Authority had the complete control over the goods as such it is not liable for payment of any damages to the importer. Upon receipt of the reply from the MSIL, the Insurer as well as Importer filed suits in S.C.Nos.1087/03, 2326-2327/03, 1080-1086, 1088-1089/03, 226/04, 280/04, 359-365/04, 417/04, 459 and 460/04, initially only against MSIL seeking decree for recovery of the value of the goods with interest. The MSIL, upon service of suit summons in all those cases appeared before the respective courts and contested the matter reiterating its stand which it had taken in its reply notice. It also contended that the suits are bad for non joinder of necessary parties viz., the customs authority. In the light of the said defence, the plaintiffs by complying with requirement of Sec.155(2) of the Act, by issuing notice to the customs authority, filed applications to implead customs authority. The applications were allowed and the Commissioner for Customs as well as Addl. Commissioner for Customs were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3. Upon appearance, defendants 2 and 3 filed written statement contending inter alia, that there is no privity of contract between them on one hand and the Importer or the Insurer of the imported goods on the other and therefore, they are not answerable for any claim. They further contended that the goods were in custody of the MSIL as custodian and the Customs Department had no control over the imported goods and since goods were in possession of the custodian when it was destroyed, the customs authority have no liability and they are not answerable for the loss. They also contended that the custodian alone is answerable for the claim.
(3.) THEREAFTER, the parties let-in evidence. One suit viz., SC 1087/2003 was pending before 1st Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes while remaining 23 suits were pending before the III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. The learned 1st Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, disposed of the said suit in SC 1087/2003 by judgment and decree dated 29.10.2004. The learned Judge, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and also various provisions of the Act, held that both custodian as well as customs authority are jointly and severally liable to pay the value of the imported goods to the Insurer which had satisfied the claim of the Importer, together with interest at 6% from the date of suit till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the MSIL has filed CRP 294/2003 questioning the judgment and decree holding it liable for answering the claim of the plaintiffs. Customs Authorities also questioned the correctness of said judgment by filing CRP 126/05. Thus the first two revision petitions viz., CRP 126 and 294/2005 relate to judgment and decree in S.C.1087/03. Subsequently, a copy of the judgment in S.C.1087/03 was produced before the III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, before whom the other cases were pending. However, though an attempt was made to club all those 23 cases and to lead common evidence, it was not accepted. Therefore, independent evidence was let-in, in all the cases by marking the original of the documents in one case and copies thereof in other cases. Ultimately, the cases were disposed of by independent but identical judgment dated 31.5.2007 wherein the learned Judge held that the customs authorities are not responsible for answering the claim of the plaintiffs and as the goods were in possession and control of the custodian viz., MSL as on the date of its destruction, the MSIL alone is answerable to the claim of the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in part, only against defendant-1 viz., MSIL and dismissed the suit against Customs Authority, defendants 2 and 3. Against the part of the decree passed against MSIL in each of these cases, MSIL has preferred 23 revision petitions in CRP 614 to 621/07 and 623/07 to 637/2007. As against the dismissal of the suits against defendants 2 and 3, the insurer as well as importer have jointly filed 23 revision petitions CRP 586 to 609/2007. In the light of the above facts and since all these revision petitions involve the same questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.;