The plaintiff imported and exported fresh fruit and vegetables through his firm, Chase International. The plaintiff entrusted two consignments of Pakistan long grain rice to the second defendant, MSC Agency Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd, the agent of the first defendant, Mediterranean Shipping Company SA (together, MSC) at Karachi for onward carriage to Zanzibar, Tanzania. The plaintiff alleged that both consignments of rice were in good order and condition when handed over at Karachi. The vessel would normally have reached Zanzibar after a month, but instead took nearly three months. Both consignments were found to be rotten when finally discharged and delivered to the consignee, and had to be destroyed.

The defendants denied the plaintiff's allegations and sought dismissal of the suit. The defendants argued that they received the consignments in Full Container Load (FCL) condition and had no opportunity to verify the condition of the cargo at the time of receiving the containers. Similarly, the defendants had no opportunity to check the weight, quality, or quantity of the consignments, due to the containers being sealed.

MSC also argued that it committed no deviation in discharge of the cargo. The bill of lading specifically stated that the carrier did not promise or undertake to load, carry, or discharge the goods on any particular date or time, that advertised sailing and arrival times were only estimates, and such schedules might be advanced, delayed, or cancelled without notice. Hence, the carrier was not liable for any consequential damages or delay in scheduled departures or arrivals. The survey conducted at the Zanzibar Port clearly reflected that the containers were in a sound condition and that the damage was due to inherent vice of the goods. The defendants were not liable for the alleged damage due to insufficiency of packing, improper stowage in the containers by the plaintiff, and inherent vice of the cargo.

Held: The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The plaintiff's suit was filed under s 3(2)(g), read with ss 4(1) and 5, of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance 1980. Admiralty jurisdiction has been conferred on this Court to hear and determine claims arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship, and in respect of any claim for loss or damage to the goods carried in a ship. The objection of the defendants that the plaintiff's case is a claim in personam and not in rem, and therefore is not maintainable, is devoid of any merits. It is settled that a claim in rem and personam is simultaneously maintainable under the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court.

There is no dispute in respect of the defendant's issuance of bills of lading for carrying the plaintiff's goods. The Hague Rules say that a bill of lading is prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods described therein. This is a conclusive evidence of shipment in the hands of the consignee or the endorsee, as the case may be, as against the master or any other person signing the same. It is settled law that holders of bills of lading are always under an expectation that they are entitled to proceed against the ship or its owner in the event of loss or damage to their goods. Hence, the plaintiff's claim falls within ss 3(2)(g) and (h) of the Ordinance, and this Court can competently exercise its admiralty jurisdiction.

In so far as the period of limitation for filing an action under the admiralty jurisdiction is concerned, the same is two years from the date of the damage occurring or the maritime lien arising as provided under s 6 of the Ordinance [sic: s 6 actually provides as follows:

Limitations of maritime lien.- No action shall be brought before the High Court to enforce a maritime lien for the damage sustained in consequence of collision wheresoever occurring or any other maritime lien unless proceedings therein are commenced within two years from the date of the damage occurring or the maritime lien arising, subject to the discretion of the High Court to extend this period.]

In this case, the goods were discharged on 14 February 2009. The claim was lodged on 20 June 2009. Thus, the plaintiff's suit appears to have been filed within time.

It is an admitted fact that the consignments were handed over to the defendants in FCL and STC (Said to Contain) condition. The term STC describes that the goods were loaded onboard a seagoing vessel in sealed containers. It is also an admitted fact that the goods were stuffed by the plaintiff/shipper at his container yard, and that the carrier/defendants were not associated with stuffing. There is nothing on the record to suggest that there was any inspection of the consignments by the defendants. In these circumstances, it appears that the particulars as to weight, value, quality and quantity of the goods were inserted in the bill of lading on the basis of declaration made by the plaintiff/shipper.

From a perusal of the bills of lading it appears that there is nothing mentioned in respect of the expected voyage period or the date of discharge of consignments at the port of destination, and it is clearly mentioned that the consignments were in FCL and STC condition. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence in respect of any undertaking or commitment made by the defendants to deliver the consignment within a certain period at the port of destination.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co Ltd v American President Lines Ltd PLD 1992 SC 291 [21-22] (CMI563) has held:

A bill of lading with notations like CY/CY, CFS or SLC is a prima facie evidence as provided by law but its rebuttal by the carrier becomes easier and the burden becomes much lighter than in other cases. Such or similar notations on the bill of lading have gained currency and their meaning is well understood in shipping, commercial and banking circles to mean that the carrier was not associated with the stuffing of the container which was exclusively done by the shipper. In the face of such bill of lading the carrier need not prove these facts unless rebutted. It has only to establish that such sealed container was properly and carefully loaded, handled, stowed, carried, kept, cared for and discharged. The burden will then shift to the shipper to prove that the number of packages or goods as shown in the bill of lading were stuffed in it. Without such proof the claim for loss or damage cannot succeed. Where the bill of lading is in respect of a container without describing the goods contained in it, the words 'apparent order and condition' will refer to the apparent condition of the container.

In the present case admittedly the bill of lading was marked with notations CY/CY, STC, which prima facie established that the containers were stuffed exclusively by the shipper. The respondents have proved by cogent evidence that the containers were discharged at Karachi with seals intact. They have further, by evidence in rebuttal, proved that they have discharged their duties as carriers properly. The appellant has not produced any evidence in rebuttal to prove the number and condition of bales stuffed in the containers. Therefore, for somewhat different reasons the appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff has failed to establish any negligence, fault, or failure on the part of defendants to perform their contractual obligations under the bills of lading. Therefore, the plaintiff's loss cannot be attributed to the defendants.