Skip to content


Mujaffar Ahmed Vs. Karim Baksh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectlimitation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Cal306
AppellantMujaffar Ahmed
RespondentKarim Baksh and ors.
Excerpt:
- mukerji, j.1. the only question which arises in this rule is whether the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation.2. the learned munsif has held that the suit is barred under articles 30 or 31, schedule 1, lim. act, having been instituted more than one year after the date when the loss or injury took place or when the goods ought to have been delivered.3. shortly stated the facts which have not been controverted are that the plaintiff put the goods on the defendant's ferry boat for conveyance and himself got on to it. other passengers with their goods also did so. the plaintiff found that the boat was being overloaded and feeling it unsafe to travel on it, he got down and wanted to take down his goods but the defendants refused to allow him to do so. notwithstanding the plaintiff's.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. The only question which arises in this rule is whether the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation.

2. The learned Munsif has held that the suit is barred under Articles 30 or 31, Schedule 1, Lim. Act, having been instituted more than one year after the date when the loss or injury took place or when the goods ought to have been delivered.

3. Shortly stated the facts which have not been controverted are that the plaintiff put the goods on the defendant's ferry boat for conveyance and himself got on to it. Other passengers with their goods also did so. The plaintiff found that the boat was being overloaded and feeling it unsafe to travel on it, he got down and wanted to take down his goods but the defendants refused to allow him to do so. Notwithstanding the plaintiff's protest the boat started on its journey with his goods and capsized on the way and the goods were lost. The claim is for recovery of price of the goods.

4. To give rise to those special privileges or liabilities which attach to transactions by or with carriers, the relationship as between a carrier and his customer has to be first established. There was admittedly no express contract for carriage and for the presumption of an implied contract to arise, delivery of the gods so as to enable the carrier to acquire lawful possession of the goods for the purpose of carriage is the indispensable essential. It is difficult to see upon the facts set forth above that there was any delivery in this case. The Article applicable to the case is, therefore, not Article 30 or 31 but Article 36, and the claim was not barred.

5. The other facts having been found in plaintiff's favour, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree.

6. The rule is made absolute. The decree of the learned Munsiff is set aside and plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs in the trial Chart as well as in this Court. Hearing fee in this rule is fixed at one gold mohur.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //