1989 PLP 4477 (MLD)

This is a suit for recovery of Rs.71,824. filed by Habib Insurance Company Limited against National Shipping Corporation.

2. Case of the plaintiff is that M/s. M.E.Dadabhoy purchased/imported 190 coils of steel sheet secondaries at the total price of $ 99,641.30 from M/s. B.S. Livingston Export Corporation New York. The shippers delivered the goods to the defendant at New Orleans who acknowledged receipt by issuing Bill of Lading. The defendant carried the above goods by its vessel `Rangamati' and agreed to deliver the goods at Karachi. The goods were insured for Rs.10,96,000 with the plaintiff. After obtaining the delivery order from defendant when the clearing agent of the importer went to take delivery they were given delivery of 180 coils only and the balance of 10 coils remained undelivered. Subsequently the defendent informed that 9 coils under nil marks were lying as excess but on inspection the importers found that none of these coils belonged to them. K.P.T. by their letter informed about short landing of 10 coils. Hence the plaintiff had to pay a sum of Rs.71,824 under a letter of subrogation to the importers which they are entitled to recover from the defendant.

3. The defendants have fled a written statement in which they have alleged that their ship 'Rangamati' had delivered the entire cargo at Karachi and denied that 10 coils were shortlanded. According to them the consignments though apparently marked were in fact marked insufficiently and inadequately and as such the said marks could not withstand the stress of voyage and had obliterated during the transit hence they had been discharged under nil marks. These 10 coils were in the custody of K.P.T. which were offered to the importers who wrongfully neglected and failed to take delivery. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- (1) What goods were shipped under the Bill of Lading in question and in what condition? (2) Whether the vessel discharged all the 190 coils as shipped? (3) Whether any goods were discharged under-nil marks and did the same pertain to the consignment in suit? (4) Whether the marks on the consignment were insufficient and (5) Whether any part of the consignment was short-landed? (6) Are the plaintiffs entitled to sue? (7) What was the value of the short-landed coils, if any? (8) What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to?

4. My findings on these issues with reasons therefor are as follows:- Today the case was fixed for recording of evidence. Mr. Imtiaz Lari the advocate for the plaintiff alongwith plaintiffs witnesses Nadeem Ahmed and others is present. There is no appearance on behalf of the defendant. The burden of all the issues was on the defendant. Mr. Imtiaz Lari was called upon by the Court to file affidavit of evidence in proof of his case. He has filed the affidavit of Nadeem Ahmad who is an officer with the plaintiff. He has reiterated on oath all that he has stated in the plaint. Hence the same need not be reproduced. He has filed the original insurance policy, short landing certificate, letter of the importers, claim bill, copy of bill of lading, invoice, payment voucher and letter of subrogation. The above evidence has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. The plaintiff's case has been proved to my satisfaction.

5. I, therefore, decree plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs.71,824 against the defendant. I also allow costs to the plaintiff, interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the recovery of the decretal amount. M.Y.H./H-168/K Suit decreed.