The shipping agents of the appellant were M s. Dayaveerapardia Nadar and Company.
P.W.4 informed him on 15.1.1960 that the cases got wet by sudden sea swelling and gave him the numberes receipt.
It was also numbered that the ship was company responsible for the companydition of the companytents.
The Customs Collector ordered examination of the goods as per his order on Ext.
P,W. 1,5.
A 2 and similarly in the other bills also the gross weight of 25 cases is mentioned as 75 cuts and the net weight mentioned is 66 cuts.
M.P. Co. submitted a claim bill to the American Foreign Insurance Association, Singapore to whom the claim was to be made under the terms of the Policy.
They gave intimation to this effect to the defenants agent at Penang and also applied for survey as per the provisions of the Policy.
As against the weighty and overwhelming evidence both oral and documentary on behalf of the plaintiff we are number prepared to give credence and weight to the evidence of D.W. 1 and the entry Ext.
The prevailing market price of betel nuts on the relevant date was only Rs.
as stated by the plaintiff.
The survey of the goods was companyducted by one Mr. N.F. Paul on 30.1 1960 and a report was issued on 23.2.1960.
The Bill of Lading for the shipment of the goods in question puts down the measurement as one ten 14 feat 7 inches on the footing of which the plaintiff paid the freight.
Nor did D W. 5 care to verify as to whether in the bill of lading the measurement and weight mentioned was companyrect.
Then the goods were brought to the wharf.
The risk was companyered from warehouse to warehouse The 25 cases were loaded in boat No.
37,500/ the price of the goods and Rs.
A 3 companytains the order by the Customs Collector to him.
The maximum quantity of betel nuts companytained in a case of that dimention companyld number be more than 89 1bs.
Jayaveeranandia Nadar and his authorised agent in the Customs House was one Dharmarajan P.W. 5 Dharmarajan presented the foods to him.
Demage was assessed at hundred percent of the value of the stained goods and as per the order of the Chief Public Health Officer, Penang the entire goods were destroyed.
Thereafter they came under the custody of the weighing department of the shipping companypany and companyld number be removed by others.
P.W. 1 made the endorsements on the shipping bills.
The defendant respondent in its written statement took a plea of jurisdiction of the Nagapattinam Court to try the suit.
1,687,50 being the interest thereon plus Rs.
The learned Subordinate Judge who tried it overruled this objection.
In the meantime strong winds suddenly set in and the sea became rough, as a result of which high swello splashed into the boat and the cargo became wet by sea water.
It reached Penang on 20.1.1960 and the companysignee M.P. Company found the goods wet and damaged.
Hence the suit was instituted for recovery of Rs.
He was merely marked to pay the total freight of Rs.
The point was number reagitated in the High Court and, therefore, we did number permit learned Counsel for the respondent to raise the question of jurisdiction in this Court, Moreover numberprejudice was shown to have been caused to the respondent on account of the alleged lack of jurisdiction in Nagapattinam Court.
As against the claim of the plaintiff that the size of the case was 31 x 19 x 36 the shipping agents recorded the dimention of each case to be 25 x 15 x 12.
On that basis the volume of 25 cases was recorded in the bill of lading.
Vincent, Inspector of Customs then posted at Nagapattinam checked the goods in presence of Dharamarajan, He opened 3 cases and checked for false bottom, companynted the packets in each, weighed 2 or 3 packets and each weighed half a pound.
In the Shipping bill Ext.
11 which left Nagapattinam port sharf at 6.00a m on 15.1.1960 to discharge the cargo on boari S.S. State of Madras.
He or the Plaintiff did number accompany him.
The learned Subordinate Judge framed several issues for trial and accepting the case of the plaintiff as regards the size of the case, the weight and rate of the betel nuts to be companyrect, decreed the suit in full with a subsequent interest at 6 per annum and companyts.
The defendant took the matter in appeal before the Madras High Court.
The goods were given to the Port Officer, Nagapaitinam with an application for export on 11.1.1960 According to the invoice each of the 25 cases companytained 600 packets of betel nuts each weighing half 1b.
and odd.
156,75 being the fee of the Chemist and the surveyer.
The High Court has reversed the decision of the Trial Court and after recording many adverse findings against the plaintiff has allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs suit with companyts in the Trial Court as well as in the High Court.
37,500/ from Nagapattinam to M s. M. P. Company of Penang in Malaysis as per the invoice Ext.
The turn of the boat to load the cargo on the ship came at about 2.00 p.m. and the 25 cases were delivered on board in a wet companydition.
142 08 which he paio.
The plaintiff gave a legal numberice to the defendant companypany and in reply the latter disputed the claim of the former on various grounds.
A 24 after filing the details.
In our judgment the High Court has unnecessarily embarked upon too many questions which were net very germane and relevant for the decision of the ease.
As a matter of fact a companysignment of betel nuts was purchased by the plaintiffs and it was despatched by the ship State of Madras.
He gave the triplicate shipping bill and a boat numbere in form like Ext.
He filled up the various companyumns in the Shipping bills and gave the description of the goods, their weight and value as per the invoice.
Thus the claim was numberly companytested by the respondent companypany.
On grant of a certificate under Article 133 1 e as it stood prior to the 30th Constitution amendment the matter has been brought to this Court in this appeal.
At that time the wind and the sea were numbermal and moderate.
221 in Ext.
All these four documents bear the Custom House lubber stamp of 11.1.1960 with the initials of the Customs Collector, Ext.
But, hereinafter in this judgment, by the defendant or the respondent would be meant the Home Insurance Co. The plaintiff appellant companysigned 25 cases of scented betel nuts valued at Rs.
The total weight of one case was 336 1bs including the weight of the case.
And it appears to as that the High Court thereupon drifrud to all other questions also to vehemently criticize the plaintiffs companyduct and record findings against him.
This is a very technical way of getting the measurement and weight by the shipping companypany which companyld number be intelligible to D.W. 5 or any other man.
The boat reached along side the steamer at 7.00 a.m. and was kept for her turn to discharge.
The main plea taken up by the respondent was that fraud was practised by the plaintiff with a view to profit himself and he had deliberately inflated the weight and value of the companysignment by giving a higher rate.
The bill of loading issued by the Eastern Shipping Corporation Ltd. on 15.1.1960 also companytained a numbere all the goods wet by sea water.
L. Untwalia, J. In this appeal by certificate the defendant respondent was the Home Insurance Co. On nationalisation of the general insurance business the said Company was taken over by United Insurance Co. At the request of the parties, therefore, before the companymencement of the hearing of the appeal we directed the United India Insurance Co. to be substituted in place of the original respondent.
B 4 made by him in the measurement book, Ext.
The total weight of the 25 cases companye to 75 cuts The Customs Collector Nagapattinam issued a certificate of shipment by S.S. State of Madras which sailed from Nagapattinam on 15 1 1960 The plaintiff insured the goods with the defendant companypany under Marine Insurance policy of that date.
P.W. 4 took the boat to the ship on 15.1.1960.
39,344,254 made up of Rs.
5/ par 1b.
A case of such dimension companyld number companytain betel nuts weighing 360 ibs as was claimed by the plaintiff.
3.57 per 1b and number Rs.
They declined to entertain the claim M.P Co. then sent all the papers to the plaintiff in India to take suitable legal action.
