NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION Versus HALCOUSIS CO.

This is a suit for recovery of Rs.5,32,141.35.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this suit are that in 1979 M/s. Trading Corporation of Pakistan Limited imported 20,000 Metric Tons Soyabean Oil from Brazil to Karachi. Defendant No.l was the principal carrier while defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were the charterers of the vessel. The above consignment was shipped in its entirety and in good order and condition. The carrier issued clean bill of lading in token thereof. The vessel carrying the consignment arrived at Karachi on 25‑8‑1979 and discharged the cargo upto 1‑9‑1979. When the discharge was completed it was found that there was a shortlanding of 274.620 Metric Tons and 17.296 Metric Tons were contaminated and 4 Metric Tons were omulsified which was also confirmed by the Surveyors who conducted the joint survey. After ascertaining the said loss the consignees filed their claims with the carrier for U.S.$.2,01,424.10. The defendants did not satisfy the said claim. Consequently the plaintiff with whom ,goods were insured had to pay a sum of Rs.5,32,141.35 in accordance with the conditions of the insurance policy. The consignees have subrogated the said claim in favour of the plaintiff. Hence this suit.

3. The defendant have chosen' to remain absent in spite of service of summons. Subsequently an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. was made and defendant No. 3 was also joined as hg was alleged to be another charterer of the vessel. He too has chosen to remain absent in spite of service.

4. The suit has therefore, proceeded ex parte against all the defendants.

5. The plaint is verified on oath. Additionally affidavit of Muhammad Tamaz, an employee of the plaintiff corporation, has been filed alongwith the documents, the list whereof is attached to this affidavit.

6. That the evidence of the plaintiff which has gone unchallenged and unrebutted I am satisfied about the claim. The only legal point that could have been taken up in this suit was of limitation. By now it is a settled law that the period of limitation in such a case would start from the date the carrier had refused the claim for compensation. Reliance in this behalf may be placed on the case of Yousaf & Co. v. Oriental Steam 60. reported in 1987 C L C 961, wherein it was held by me that limitation period of one year prescribed under Article 31 for institution of suit against carrier for compensation for short deliver of goods would start running from date when consignee's claim of compensation was finally refused by carrier and not from date when vessel carrying goods arrived at port. I had relied upon the case of Abdul Jalil Chowdhury v. The Muhammadi Steamship Co. Ltd. and others reported in P L D 1961 SC 340 and the case of National Insurance Corporation v . P . N . S . C . reported in 1985 C L C 360 in which similar view was taken.

7. I, therefore, decree the plaintiff's suit as prayed.

H. B. T./N‑61/K Suit decreed