Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, National Textile Corporation Ltd., filed a suit for recovery of Rs.84,931.48 with interest against defendant No.1 (K.L. Kapadia), the consignee, and defendant No.2 (transporter). The plaintiff had entered into an agreement with defendant No.1 appointing him as an authorized retail stockist. In June 1978, the plaintiff supplied fabrics worth Rs.79,468.06 under 11 bills, which were transported by defendant No.2. The goods were delivered to defendant No.1, but defendant No.2 failed to obtain the lorry receipts duly discharged by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 did not pay the price, and the documents presented through the plaintiff's banker were returned. The plaintiff sought to hold both defendants jointly and severally liable. Defendant No.1 denied delivery and claimed inability to pay the entire amount at once, while defendant No.2 admitted delivery but contended it was not liable. The court found that defendant No.1 had taken delivery and was liable for the price. Defendant No.2, by delivering without collecting discharged lorry receipts, breached its duty as a carrier and was also liable. The court decreed the suit against both defendants jointly and severally for Rs.79,468.06 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Sale of Goods - Liability of Consignee - The plaintiff supplied fabrics to defendant No.1 under 11 bills in June 1978, aggregating to Rs.79,468.06, delivered through defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 failed to pay the price despite taking delivery. The court held defendant No.1 liable for the price of goods as the consignee who accepted delivery. (Paras 1-4, 8) B) Carriage of Goods - Liability of Transporter - Breach of Trust - Defendant No.2, the transporter, delivered the goods to defendant No.1 without obtaining the lorry receipts duly discharged by the consignee. This constituted a breach of the contract of carriage and breach of trust. The court held defendant No.2 jointly and severally liable for the price of the goods. (Paras 3-4, 8) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - The court noted that defendant No.2 admitted delivery to defendant No.1 but failed to produce any evidence of obtaining discharged lorry receipts. The burden was on defendant No.2 to show proper delivery, which it did not discharge. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether defendant No.2 (transporter) is liable for delivering goods to defendant No.1 without obtaining duly discharged lorry receipts, and whether both defendants are jointly and severally liable for the price of the goods.
Final Decision
Suit decreed against defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 jointly and severally for Rs.79,468.06 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment.
Law Points
- Liability of carrier for delivery without collecting lorry receipts
- joint and several liability of consignee and carrier
- breach of contract of carriage
- breach of trust
- burden of proof on carrier to show delivery to proper person
