Maintainability
of civil suit against Steamer Agent: Plaint returned for non-compliance of sec.
20 CPC.
(V.M.
Syam Kumar, Advocate, High Court of Kerala)
Mere
issuance of insurance policy at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction
on the civil court at that place to entertain a suit against the steamer agent
when neither the port of loading nor the port of discharge or the place of
delivery are within the jurisdictional limits of the said court. The
requirements under sec. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have to be
satisfied before such a suit can be entertained.
A civil Suit filed against the steamer agent by the insurer & the shipper at the latter’s place of business was recently rejected by the Civil Court pointing out that noncompliance of sec. 20 CPC is fatal.
A civil Suit filed against the steamer agent by the insurer & the shipper at the latter’s place of business was recently rejected by the Civil Court pointing out that noncompliance of sec. 20 CPC is fatal.
It
was contended by the steamer agent that the Contract of affreightment as
evidenced by the terms and conditions of the bills of lading was entered in to
in Mtwara and the contract was to be completed in Tuticorin. The defendant had
no office and does not function from within the jurisdictional limits of the
Munsiff’s Court, Kollam. No part of the cause of action has arisen within the
jurisdictional limits of the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam.. Thus neither the contract
of affreightment was entered in to between the parties within the jurisdiction
of the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam nor was any part of the contract performed or to
be performed within the said jurisdiction. Hence only the Courts at Mtwara or
Tuticorin have jurisdiction to entertain any action pertaining to the relevant
the Contract of affreightment. In the circumstances the above suit was liable
to be dismissed; or in the alternative the plaint is to be returned for filing
before the appropriate forum. Further in view of the specific provision
contained in the Contract of affreightment as evidenced by the terms and
conditions of the bills of lading, issued by the Carrier, the Munsiff Court,
Kollam has no jurisdiction to try the matter, that being a condition agreed
upon between the parties to the contract of affreightment. All persons claiming
under the respective parties to the contract of affreightment are bound by all
the terms and conditions contained in the contract.
The
learned Judge accepted the contentions put forth by the steamer agent and held
as follows:
“Merely because the office of the
plaintiff is situated within the jurisdictional limits of this court it cannot
be contended that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit especially
where the plaintiff has no case that any part of the transaction took place in
the office of the plaintiffs. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the
defendant, the plaintiff has no case that the contract was executed within the
jurisdiction of this court or that the contract was for transit from or to a place
within the jurisdiction of this court. On the other hand admittedly, the
contract was for carriage of goods from Port Mtwara Tanzania to Tuticorin,
Tamil Nadu and admittedly the office of the defendant is situated at Tuticorin,
Tamil Nadu. Hence it is found that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain
the suit.”
Many
a time the carrier or their agent and the discharge port are compelled to
defend suits initiated in places which have no relevance or collection with the
contract of carriage. Such suits are filed on the pretext that the goods
carried are covered by an insurance policy which had been issued at the
particular place were the suit had been initiated. Notwithstanding the fact
that neither the carrier nor the steamer agent are privy to such insurance
policies, they are compelled to defend civil action at such places which are alien
to them.
The
judgment rendered by the presiding judge Smt. Prasanna Gopan reiterates the
well settled law that mere issuance of an insurance policy does not confer
jurisdiction upon the courts at the place of such issuance to entertain a
damage claim against the carrier or its agent if the requirements under section
20 of the code of civil procedure are not satisfied.
The
Judgment of the Hon’ble Court rendered by Smt. Prasanna Gopan can be accessed
at:
https://www.scribd.com/document/327754997/Os-544-Final-Order-Bsv-Kollam-Pandi
***
https://www.scribd.com/document/327754997/Os-544-Final-Order-Bsv-Kollam-Pandi
***