Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 4521 = 1966 SLD 4521 = 1966 PLD 253
Sindh High Court
Civil Revision Application No. 568 of 1962, decided on 19th May 1965.
Presented By: Wahiduddin Ahmad, J
Abbas Zia for Applicant.   M. Sidique Nizamani for
Respondent.

GULZAR AHMED-Applicant  

VERSUS

  SIND-PUNJAB GOODS TRANSPORT Co. -----Respondent

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 31

Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 114

Law: Civil Procedure Code (1908)

Section: 20

Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-----Art. 31-Delivery of goods-Calculation of reasonable time for determining period of limitation from date of consignment of goods-Circumstances taken into consideration-Goods sent by motor trucks-Carrier leading no evidence to show (i) date of despatch from place K, (ii) date of arrival at place L, and (iii) when goods were placed in deliverable position-Presumption that "goods reached place L within a week or so"-Held, cannot be raised.   Ordinarily a reasonable time is calculated for determining the period of limitation from the date when the goods are consigned. In coming to the conclusion as to what point of time should be considered to be the time when the goods ought to be delivered, certain circumstances are always taken into considera tion. These are the date when the goods are despatched, the date when the goods reached the destination and the nature and the manner in which the goods are sent. In cases where the goods are despatched by railway these facts can be easily ascertained from the Railway Receipt. The R. R. is usually presented at the station of destination and the clerk concerned from time to time notes down on it about the arrival or non arrival of the goods, and the date on which they arrived. One can find out from these facts when the goods were consigned and when they were received at the place of destination.   The goods in dispute were sent from place K to place L by motor trucks. The carrier led no evidence to show on what date the goods were despatched from K, on what date they reached L and when they were placed in a position to be delivered to the consignee. The subordinate Court raised a presumption that ordinarily goods sent by road from K should reach L within a week or so:   Held, that in the absence of any evidence led by the opponent about the arrival of the goods at L no such presumption could be raised. In such cases it is incumbent on a transport company to prove by cogent evidence that the goods entrusted to it were despatched by such and such carrier and it should be further proved that the carrier through which the goods were sent arrived at the destination by such…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register