M.B.SHAH, J. - (1.) The appellants-plaintiffs had filed Special Civil Suit No. 41 of 1972 before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Bhuj-Kutch against Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who are owner of the vessel Sklerion disponent owner of the vessel agent and supplier-cum-shipper of the suit consignment and charterer of the said vessel respectively for recovering Rs. 39 465.65 P. for the short delivery of the goods or loss as worked out as stated in paragraph 12 of the plaint. The plaintiffs have also claimed Rs. 1 74 491.3 P. against Respondent No. 5 on the ground that on 15-11-1971 the suit cargo caught fire at Transit Shed No. II when the cargo was in custody of Kandla Port Trust i.e. Respondent No. 5. After recording the necessary evidence the learned Civil Judge(S.D.) Kutch at Bhuj by his judgment and decree dated 6th October 1975 dismissed the suit with costs against which the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.
(2.) With regard to the claim of the appellant against Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 for Rs. 39 465.65 P. on the ground that the plaintiffs have suffered the shortage or loss to the aforesaid extent because bags were found water damages and original contents hardened the said claim can be dismissed on the short ground that the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 would not be liable to pay the said amount because as per the certificate of completion of discharge Exhibit 208 issued by Respondent No. 5 it is clear that the total cargo as per manifest was discharged. Port outturn Report Exhibit 211 and Remarks List Exhibit 212 also show that complete manifest cargo was discharged. Once it is established that complete manifest cargo was delivered to the receiver of the plaintiffs then the plaintiffs cannot contend that the quantity received was less. Further it is an admitted position that before removing the goods from the vessels hatch-way no notice in writing to tally the cargo was given to the Master of the ship as required by Clause 5 of Charter party Exhibit 202. In this view of the matter the learned Judge was right in rejecting the claim of the appellants on that count.
(3.) With regard to the second claim of Rs. 1 74 491.3 P. the said claim is made on the ground that the plaintiffs had suffered loss and damage due to negligence of the Defendant No. 5 as it did not take due and proper care of cargo which caught fire and because of that the plaintiffs suffered the afore-said loss. In our opinion the learned Judge was right in holding that the suit was barred by the plea of limitations prescribed under Section 1930 of the Major Port Trusts Act 1963 Section 120 reads as under: 120 No suit or other proceeding shall be commenced against a Board or any member or employee thereof for anything done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of this Act until the expiration of one month after notice in writing has been given to the Board or him stating the cause of action or after six months after the accrual of the cause of action. From the aforesaid provision of Section 120 it is clear that the suit is required to be filed against the Board or any member or employee thereof for anything done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of the Act after expiration of one month after notice in writing has been given to the Board or to the employee thereof and within a period of six months after accrual of the cause of action. Under Section 42 (1) (b) of the Major Port Trusts Act storing of the goods is one of the services which are required to be undertaken by the Board. Section 43 provides for the responsibility of the Board for the loss destruction or deterioration of goods of which it has taken charge. Therefore it is statutory duty and function of the Board to store the goods and Section 43 provides for responsibility of the Board for loss or damage to the goods. Hence Section 120 of the Act is clearly applicable to the facts of the case. Admittedly the suit filed beyond six months as it was filed on 15-11-1972 and the fire took place on 10-11-1971 as deposed by Velan Maruthodi Fire Officer F.C.I. at Exhibit 95 on temporary Shed No. 2 which was known to the plaintiffs at least on 15-11-1971 as deposed by their witness Indrapal Exhibit 65 who is Senior A. Manager F.C.I".;