P. Kalaiyarasan, J. - (1.) This Appeal Suit is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 08.09.2014 made in O.S.No.12776 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
(2.) The plaint averments are as follows : (i) The plaintiffs imported 219 bales of raw silk Grade-less from crown commercial house, Hongkong. Out of the total quantity of 219 bales imported, the plaintiffs are concerned with 132 bales. The said 132 bales of raw silk were shipped in vessel Lanka Srimathi at Hongkong under bills of lading. The said vessel arrived at the port of Madras on or about 27.01.1992 and discharged its cargo. The plaintiffs engaged M/s. International Implex Agency, Madras to act as their clearing agents at the Madras Port for clearing of the said bales. The plaintiffs were granted permission by the defendant to destuff the full container load and they were able to clear about 87 bales raw silk and the remaining 132 bales were in the custody of the defendant pending clearance. (ii) While the said goods were under the custody of the defendant, fire broke out on 31.08.1993 at the sales warehouse where the plaintiffs' goods were stored, as a result of which plaintiffs goods were destroyed/damaged/water soaked. The defendant informed the plaintiffs about the fire accident through its communication, dated 08.09.1993 and requested the plaintiffs to clear the goods after paying the dues. The plaintiffs instructed their clearing agent to take immediate action through their communication, dated 28.09.1993. The clearing agent addressed the defendant by making clear that due to fire in the warehouse, the plaintiffs have to suffer huge loss and they would be holding the defendant liable for the actual loss after conducting survey. The defendant was also requested to depute their surveyor/authorised representative to participate in the independent survey that was to be conducted on the consignments affected by fire at 3 p.m on 28.09.1993. They were also called upon to inform the clearing agents as to when it would be feasible for them to conduct a joint survey. Since there was no response from the defendant, the plaintiffs have to arrange for an independent survey on the goods affected by fire. (iii) The survey was conducted on 28.09.1993 at the sale warehouse of the defendant in the presence of officers of the clearing agency and the plaintiffs. The Surveyors submitted their report, dated 29.09.1993. As per the report, 38 bales of raw silk were found in the water soaked stained and partly charred condition. 34 bales were found lying inside the locker godown and the contents were found completely charred, loose ranks scattered all over and water soaked. The nett weight of raw silk in 34 bales which was considered total loss is 1122 kgs. The partly charred, stained water, soaked raw silks from 38 bales are beyond and reprocessing/repairing condition and the nett weight of those bales is 1254 kgs. The said quantity is of no use to the plaintiffs and it was also treated as total loss. The damaged silks have no scrap value. The total loss due to fire comes to 2376 kgs and the plaintiffs value the loss at USD 48,700/-, which is Rs.12,66,688.03/- in Indian currency. (iv) The fire broke out at the defendant's sales warehouse and caused damage and loss to the goods, for which they were incharge and custody and it occurred solely due to the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiffs caused a notice, dated 29.09.1993 to the defendant. The defendant sent a belated reply, dated 07.12.1993. The defendant as bailee is bound and liable to take care of the goods while they were in their custody. Therefore, the suit has been filed for recovery of the amount towards damages.
(3.) The averments in the written statement are as follows : (i) The suit is not maintainable either in law or on statement of facts. The suit itself is barred by limitation, as per Section 120 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963, since the suit was not filed within six months from the date of accrual of the cause of action. The suit though seems to have been presented before the trial Court on 12.07.1994 in defective form and the same was finally represented only during the year 2006. Due to long lapse of delay, the defendant, a public undertaking has been seriously disabled from effectively putting forward their defence. (ii) The vessel Lanka Srimathi arrived at Chennai Port on 27.01.1992. The consignment of 201 packages (182 bales + 19 cartons) of raw silk was de-stuffed from container landed from the vessel. Out of 201 packages, 68 bales and 19 cartons were delivered and the remaining 114 bales were transferred and stocked in the 8th compartment of Sales warehouse. The clearing agents filed Import Application on 03.02.1992 for clearance of the consignments and cleared 87 bales. The plaintiffs were clearing the consignments in parts. The balance packages as per tally maintenance at the time of de-stuffing are only 114 packages. For the said packages, the consignee had not paid the Trust dues payable on them till date. (iii) The said packages are lying uncleared in the sea warehouse incurring heavy demurrage charges. Since the dues to the Trust were mounting and the goods were left uncleared, the defendant issued sale notice, dated 12.08.1992 to the consignee. But the consignee did not take any steps to clear the same. The Trusts warehouse are only transit sheds which could not be used as private go downs by the users and store their cargo for such a long period. The defendant cannot be attributed with any negligence or imprudence to the loss. (iv) There was an accident of a minor fire in one of the compartments of the sales warehouse on 31.08.1993. This was for reasons beyond the control of the defendant, despite all care taken to safeguard the goods. In the accident, some of the bales were damaged and the same was moved to the 7th compartment. Thereafter, M/s. International Impex Agency cleared some bales on 08.06.1995. As per the de-stuffing particulars only 48 bales were available at Sales warehouse and the same was brought for sale through public auction. The claim of the plaintiffs appears to have been exaggerated. (v) The defendant had intimated to the plaintiffs about the said fire accident by letter, dated 08.09.1993 and asked them to clear the goods expeditiously on payment of the Trust's dues in full and also directed them to conduct survey by their own Surveyors in the presence of Customs officials. Thereafter, the agents of the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the defendant proposing the survey. Then the plaintiffs sent legal notice. The defendant also sent a suitable reply. Except the above facts, the averments made in the plaint are denied. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.;