| Case ID |
440c4158-4377-4eab-b255-32c8751e4896 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No. 117 of 1963 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 01, 1967 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, Muhammad Siddiq, awarding him Rs. 1,01,890-88 with interest at six percent per annum from the date of the suit until payment, along with the costs of the suit. The court held that the defendants, Messrs Almuslim Goods Transport Co. and Pak Union Goods Transport Co., were liable for the wrongful delivery and non-delivery of consignments of yarn entrusted to them. The court found that the defendants acted in collusion with Sheikh Abdul Ghani, leading to a breach of trust and a criminal act under the Carriers Act, 1865. The failure of the plaintiff to declare the value of the goods at the time of booking did not absolve the defendants of their liability, as the wrongful delivery constituted a criminal breach not covered by the Carriers Act's protection provisions. Consequently, the defendants were ordered to indemnify the plaintiff for the loss incurred due to their actions. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Muhammad Siddiq vs. Messrs Almuslim Goods Transport Co. and Abdur Rahman, adjudicated by the Sindh High Court in 1967, the plaintiff sought redress for the wrongful delivery and non-delivery of consignments of yarn entrusted to the defendants for carriage from Karachi to Lyallpur. The case revolved around the defendants' breach of contract and their alleged collusion with Sheikh Abdul Ghani, leading to significant financial losses for the plaintiff. Central to the dispute was the interpretation of the Carriers Act, 1865, particularly sections 3 and 8, which define the liabilities of common carriers for loss or damage to goods. The defendant's failure to deliver the goods as per the contract terms, coupled with the unauthorized delivery to Abdul Ghani, was deemed a criminal breach of trust. Despite the plaintiff's omission to declare the value of the goods at the time of booking, the court held that this did not exempt the defendants from liability, as the wrongful delivery went beyond mere loss or damage and constituted a criminal act under the Act. Additionally, the Evidence Act sections 45 and 73 played a pivotal role in scrutinizing the authenticity of the documents presented, ultimately affirming the defendants' culpability. The court's decision underscored the stringent responsibilities of common carriers in safeguarding entrusted goods and reinforced legal protections against fraudulent and negligent practices in the transportation sector. This case serves as a critical reference point for contractual obligations and the legal implications of unauthorized actions by carriers, emphasizing the judiciary's role in upholding trust and integrity within commercial transactions. The judgment not only provided justice to the aggrieved party but also set a precedent for future cases involving carrier liabilities, contractual breaches, and collaborative misconduct in the logistics and transportation industry. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
United Bank Ltd.,
Muhammad Shafiq,
Habib Bank Ltd.,
Messrs Almuslim Goods Transport Co.,
Pak Union Goods Transport Co.,
Standard Bank Ltd.,
Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd.,
Sheikh Abdul Ghani
|
| Judges |
Noorul Arfin, J
|
| Lawyers |
Munawar Abbas,
A. H. Pirzada,
Muhammad Din Malik
|
| Petitioners |
Muhammad Siddiq
|
| Respondents |
Messrs Almuslim Goods Transport Co.,
Abdur Rahman
|
| Citations |
1968 SLD 2,
1968 PLD 263
|
| Other Citations |
Hearn v. The London and South Western Railway Co. 156 E R 660,
The Irrawaddy Flotilla Company v. Bugwandas I L R 18 Cal. 62,
Brethren v. Wood 3 B&B 62,
India General Navigation and Railway Co. v. Baroda Kanta Dey P L D 1954 Dacca 84,
Hretherton v: Wood (3B&B62)
|
| Laws Involved |
Evidence Act, 1 of 1872,
Contract Act, 1872,
Carriers Act, 1865
|
| Sections |
45,
73,
148,
151,
152,
3,
8
|