1993 PLP 1841 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 25th August, 1992. This revision application arises out of the judgment passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Karachi. in Suit No. 35 of 1990 filed by the present respondent. Briefly the facts are that M/s. Taj Industries had imported 556 bags of synthetic rubber polysar valuing U.S.$. 20,155 from the Port of Antwerp to Karachi vide the applicant's vessel m.v. "Khairpur" under Bill of Lading No. C‑02 dated 18‑4‑1989 in a sealed container. This shipment was accepted by the applicant as per "shippers load, stowage and count" as endorsed on the said Bill of Lading. On the arrival of the vessel at Karachi, a notice was published in the press and accordingly the consignment was discharged into the custody of Karachi Port Trust. The said consignment was said to have been insured with the present respondent under Marine Policy dated 17‑5‑1989, which was after the arrival of the vessel and discharge of the consignment. However, when the seal of the consignment was broken and consignment was unstuffed in presence of K.P.T. the surveyor and Tally Contractor it was found that 5 bags were short . shipped and thus short landed, such short landing report dated 9‑8‑1989 was obtained by consignee who lodged their claim with the present respondent for Rs.3,820 being C & F value of the Five Bags short landed. The consignee also lodged the claim with the respondent which was satisfied under the said Insurance Policy and a letter of subogation was obtained by the respondent from the consignee. The respondent thereafter filed the said suit which was decreed as above. Being aggrieved, the present revision application has been filed. I have heard Mr. Shamsul Arfin, the learned counsel for the applicant. None is present for the respondents nor any intimation has been received. The learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the findings of the lower Court on the ground that the lower Court has ignored to consider the fact that Bill of Lading carried the notations "S.T.C." and also that a remark was mentioned therein at the foot of the Bill of Lading to the effect that the same was contained "shippers load, stowage and count". In this view of the matter, he has submitted that the finding of the lower Court is erroneous as the said marking S.T.C. stands for "said to contain". From this it has to be assumed that the mention of the 'contents in the Bill of Lading was as per the instructions of the shippers and, therefore, the short shipping or short landing, if any, would be the liability of the shippers and the carrier cannot be held responsible for the same. The learned counsel has referred to the case of American President Lines Ltd. v. The Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Ltd. PLD 1990 Karachi

156. In this case the revision filed by the shippers was allowed. This judgment of Sindh High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court and the learned Supreme Court was also pleased to dismiss the appeal. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the judgment of Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Ltd. v. American President Lines Ltd. PLD 1992 SC 291 at paragraph No.22 read as under:‑‑ "In the present case admittedly the Bill of Lading was marked with notations CY/CY‑STC, which prima facie established that the containers were stuffed exclusively by the shipper: The respondents have proved by cogent evidence that the containers were discharged at Karachi with seals intact. They have further, by evidence in rebuttal, proves that they have discharged their duties as carriers properly. The appellant has not produced any evidence in rebuttal to prove the number and condition of bales stuffed in the containers. Therefore, for somewhat different reasons the appeal is dismissed." In view of above discussion, I am of the view that the lower Court has erred in decreeing the suit of the present respondent. Accordingly I allow this revision application, set aside the judgment of the lower Court and dismiss the suit of the respondent. The respondent will be liable to pay costs of suit as well as this revision application. M.BA./P‑258/K Appeal dismissed.