ORDER : Pranav Trivedi, J. 1. The present First Appeal is preferred under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 09.01.2023 passed below Exhibit-120 in Commercial Civil Suit No. 563 of 2021 (old Civil Suit No. 1373 of 2011) by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad was pleased to partly decree the suit directing the present appellant – original defendant no. 1 to pay an amount of Rs.17,06,612.46 paise only to respondent no. 1 - original plaintiff with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing the present suit till realization of the amount. 2. The factual matrix which has led to filing of the present appeal is that the appellant – original defendant no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) represented respondent no. 1 – original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) about its ability and experience to transport the goods from Ahmedabad, India to Kabul, Afghanistan. The respondent is engaged in the production of pharmaceuticals drugs viz., Sterile injectible pharmaceutical and products range comprises many products across multiple markets and therapeutic segments including anaesthesia, critical care, anti-infective etc. One of the product of the respondent being Sodium Lactate and Sodium Chloride Intra Venous Infusion BP were sold by the respondent to M/s. Sayed Obaidullah Sayed Zadah Limited, a Company in Afghanistan. The respondent had to transport the goods to Khairkana, Phase-3, Kabul, Afghanistan. Pursuant to the representation made by the appellant, it was decided that two 40 ft., Containers bearing No. GLDU 7561405 and CRSU9020956 were to be delivered through the appellant to the buyers at Kabul. It was an undisputed fact that the consignments were in good and sound conditions when their delivery was taken by the appellant and the consignments were duly packed. It is also an undisputed fact that the goods had specific shelf-life after which the goods could not have been used and would become useless. It is also an undisputed fact that the respondent had paid Rs.2,36,107.43 paise and Rs.2,35,525.03; respectively, to the appellant being the charge of freight, terminal handling, container report, bill of loading fees, bill of loading surrenders and other charges for the said two containers. It is also an undisputed fact that the respondent had paid Rs.2,36,107.43 paise and Rs.2,35,525.03; respectively, to the appellant being the charge of freight, terminal handling, container report, bill of loading fees, bill of loading surrenders and other charges for the said two containers. 2.1 The said two containers were loaded around 02.07.2010 and 17.07.2010; respectively, in ships at GTIL Port in India and were to be delivered after around 15 days at Kabul. It is also an undisputed fact that it was categorically mentioned in the bill of loading that the basis of transport transaction would be on CIF basis and the appellant had assured that the delivery would be carried out in time. However, the appellant informed the respondent that on 16.08.2010 two containers were not delivered and they were detained at Amangarh terminal. The containers had left the shores of India on 02.07.2010 and 17.07.2010; respectively. However, on 16.08.2020 i.e. after merely after 45 days, it was informed that the goods were detained at Amangarh terminal and had not reached Kabul. Being aggrieved by such action of the appellant, the respondent had preferred Civil Suit being Commercial Civil Suit No. 563 of 2021 (old Civil Suit No. 1373 of 2011), inter alia praying for damages, loss of value of goods, value of replacement, loss of reputation for nondelivery, loss of future business etc., amounting to total claim of Rs.2,49,27,360.46 only. The learned Judge, Commercial Court, vide judgment and order dated 09.01.2023, partly decreed the suit and ordered claim of amount of Rs.17,06,612.46/-. It is this judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad which is assailed in the present appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. Nishit Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Parth Medh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent on service of advance copy. 4. Mr. Nishit Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the consignments were to be transported from Nhava Seva Port, India to Karachi in ship. Thereafter, from Amangarh Terminal to Kabul, Afghanistan by road transport in trucks. When the goods reached to Karachi, Pakistan, there was heavy flood which affected major area of Pakistan including Karachi. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has submitted that there was a nationwide strike of truck operators in Karachi and these reasons were beyond the control of the appellant. Learned advocate Mr. When the goods reached to Karachi, Pakistan, there was heavy flood which affected major area of Pakistan including Karachi. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has submitted that there was a nationwide strike of truck operators in Karachi and these reasons were beyond the control of the appellant. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has submitted that on account of the reasons which were beyond the control of the appellant, it was duly informed to the respondent by the appellant that it was not possible immediately to transport the consignments to Kabul from Karachi. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi that it was in view of this situation which was beyond the control of the appellant was explained to the respondent and further that there was a nationwide strike of the truck operators they were demanding more fare amounting to 4000 US $. Pursuant thereto, the respondent agreed to such offer and in view of such agreement, the appellant in good faith paid the amount to the transporter in Pakistan. However, the respondent changed his version and refused to pay extra road transportation charges and instead he shifted the burden on the shoulder of the present appellant. Thus, it was explained by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi that it was in this context, the appellant has also filed counter claim. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that the respondent was in knowledge that if the goods are to be transported from Amangarh Terminal to Kabul and there would be extra charges of US $2460/-. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has submitted that the following are the reasons as to why goods had not reached Kabul :- (a) There was natural calamity in the form of heavy floods; (b) immediately following the floods, there was a nationwide strike of truck operators; (c) pursuant to the strike of the trucks, the respondent had refused to pay extra truck fare amounting to US $2460 which would be an interim solution of delivering of the goods; (d) demurrage charges at Amangarh terminal waiting acceptance, which were beyond the control of the appellant. 4.2. Therefore, according to Mr. 4.2. Therefore, according to Mr. Gandhi the reasons for goods not reaching Kabul cannot be attributable to the appellant and as such, the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad has grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that it was a negligent act on the part of the appellant which has resulted into goods not reaching Kabul. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has also submitted that the learned Judge, Commercial Court failed to appreciate that the suit filed by the respondent is barred by limitation provided under the MultiModal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Transport of Goods Act’). As per provisions of Section 24 of the Transport of Goods Act, the multimodal transport operator shall not be liable under any of the provisions of this Act unless action against him is brought within nine months of the date of delivery of the goods. It was further submitted that appellant being transporter as defined under the Transport of Goods Act, period of limitation was applicable. Even assuming that the second consignment was to reach on 29.07.2010, the suit was instituted on 22.06.2011 which was clearly beyond the period of nine months and, therefore, the provisions of limitation as per Transport of Goods Act will be applicable in the present case. Therefore, the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad erred in not considering the issue of limitation. In view of this the appellant has prayed to admit the present first appeal. 5. Per contra, Mr. P. A. Medh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has submitted that the appellant was liable for gross negligence, recklessness, non delivery and loss of the goods. The whereabouts of the two containers are not know due to inefficiency, gross negligence of the appellant. It was submitted that the goods were transported on 02.07.2010 and were supposed to reach Kabul on 17.07.2010. However, to the utter shock and surprise of the respondent, they came to know on 16.08.2010 that the goods were not delivered at all and they were detained at Amangarh terminal. It was further submitted that the containers lefts the shores of India on 02.07.2010 and would have reached Kabul by 13.07.2010 and as such, the appellant had sufficient time to clear the containers. However, the appellant has tried to attribute his delay to other resources in order to escape from its liability. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. It was further submitted that the containers lefts the shores of India on 02.07.2010 and would have reached Kabul by 13.07.2010 and as such, the appellant had sufficient time to clear the containers. However, the appellant has tried to attribute his delay to other resources in order to escape from its liability. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Medh that the appellant had informed the respondent after a period of 45 days and thereafter started by giving excuses about the floods, strike of truck operators etc., and thereafter made illegal demand of US $ 2460 and additional demand of demurrage charge of US $ 14000 towards laying detention. This was nothing but to cover up the negligent act of the appellant. 6. Mr. Anal Shah, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 – Insurance Company has submitted that there is no liability fastened on respondent no. 2 – Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had filed their written statement in Civil Suit and explained that the insurance cover was only extended to the loss upon warehouse. It was further submitted that as per the provisions of the Transport of Goods Act, the liability of payment of damages, if any, is not to be borne by the Insurance Company as per the policy of insurance. Therefore, the learned Judge, Commercial Court correctly did not fasten the liability on respondent no. 2 – Insurance Company. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad, we may note that the main contention of both the parties revolves around short factual aspect. As per the contention of the appellant, it was an ‘Act of God’ which had resulted into goods not reaching Kabul. However, if the factual aspect is looked into, the goods had left the shores of India on 02.07.2010 and were supposed to reach Kabul on 13.07.2010. However, the information regarding the goods having been detained at the Amangarh Terminal was given on 16.08.2010 i.e. almost after a month of the scheduled date of delivery. This fact itself shows a clear cut negligence on the part of the appellant. 7.1. From the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad, some factual aspects are clearly emerging which could not be disputed before us. This fact itself shows a clear cut negligence on the part of the appellant. 7.1. From the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad, some factual aspects are clearly emerging which could not be disputed before us. The goods had left the shores of India and were to be delivered at Kabul, Afghanistan in approximately 15 days. The appellant had led oral evidence by filing affidavit and oral evidence of two witnesses. Both the witnesses had accepted the fact that the goods which left the shores of India had to reach Kabul, Afghanistan within approximately 15 days. Therefore, the expected date of delivery of consignments was around 17.07.2010 qua first consignment and 04.08.2010 qua the second consignment. It is also observed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad that as per the deposition of Mr. Jay Darji on behalf of the appellant, there was no dispute with regard to the dates of strike of truck operators and floods in Pakistan and both the situation continued upto end of July and this fact was not disputed by the witness of the appellant. Therefore, once the container left the shores on 02.07.2010 and were supposed to reach to Kabul by road on 17.07.2010, the ‘Act of God’ as envisaged by the appellant, was not in picture. 7.2. Further, the containers contained medicines which were having a very short shelf-life. Inspite of the above, the appellant, for the first time, informed about the detention of the containers only on 16.08.2010. Thereafter, the appellant had demanded additional amount of US $ 2460 as well as demurrage charges as emerging from the record. Further, from the cross-examination of the witnesses of the appellant it is clear that normally if the freight is prepared, all the expenses for transporting the goods from India to destination were to be borne by the appellant. However, the appellant had continued to ask for additional amount for transportation of goods from Amangarh to Kabul. The learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad after going through the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence has recorded the above noted facts, we see no reason to interfere with the observations made by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad that there was negligence on the part of the appellant. 7.3. The second aspect which has been argued by the learned advocate Mr. 7.3. The second aspect which has been argued by the learned advocate Mr. Gandhi on the question of limitation under the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993. It was submitted that as per Section 24 of the Transport of Goods Act read with Section 13, the transporter shall not be liable under any of the provisions unless action against him was brought within nine months from the date of delivery of the goods. However, a perusal of the provisions of Section 24 of the Transport of Goods Act, shows that there are three conditions stipulated for computation of limitation for institution of the suit, i.e. (1) the date of delivery of goods ; (2) the date when the goods should have been delivered, or (3) the date on and from which the party entitled to receive delivery of goods has the right to treat the goods as lost. Under sub-section (2) of Section 13, if the consignment was not delivered within ninety consecutive days following the date of delivery expressly agreed upon or the reasonable time, then the consignment may be treated as lost. In the instant case, the consignment was supposed to reach on 17.07.2010 and 02.08.2010; respectively, and 90 days thereafter would be 02.11.2010 for the goods being considered as lost. The suit was instituted on 22.06.2011 i.e. within the period of nine months from the date when the goods were considered as lost. The submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi on the aspect of limitation are, thus, untenable and required to be rejected. 8. In view of the aforesaid observations, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is required to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No order as to cost. Consequently, the connected Civil Application for stay also stands disposed of.