The increasing interconnectedness of global trade has amplified the significance of efficient and streamlined logistics. Multimodal transportation, which involves the movement of goods using a combination of transport modes such as rail, road, sea, and air under a single contract, has emerged as a crucial element in optimizing logistics processes 1. This approach facilitates faster transit of goods and mitigates the disadvantages associated with geographical distances, proving particularly effective in large and diverse nations like India for ensuring seamless end-to-end delivery 1.

The growing reliance on multimodal transport underscores the imperative for a robust and transparent legal framework governing liability to ensure the smooth functioning of trade operations. As trade volumes expand and supply chains become increasingly intricate, the potential for disputes concerning liability also rises, making a well-defined legal regime essential for providing predictability and reducing transaction costs.

The efficiency and security inherent in multimodal transportation are intrinsically linked to the clarity and effectiveness of the liability regime that governs it 3. A well-articulated legal framework ensures that responsibilities are assigned effectively, incentivizing stakeholders to adopt necessary precautions and guaranteeing fair compensation in the event of loss or damage.

Conversely, ambiguities or deficiencies within the liability framework can precipitate disputes, elevate insurance expenses, and potentially deter the adoption of multimodal transport, thereby impeding overall trade efficiency. Shippers require the assurance that their goods are adequately protected throughout their journey, while Multimodal Transport Operators (MTOs) necessitate clarity regarding their responsibilities and potential liabilities.

In India, the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, was enacted with the primary objective of establishing a liability regime for MTOs 4. This legislation aimed to introduce a uniform system to address the ambiguities and imbalances of interests that existed between operators and cargo owners under the conventional system of separate contracts for each mode of transport 3.

The intent behind this Act was to create a specific legal framework tailored to the unique challenges and complexities of multimodal transport, thereby simplifying the process for shippers by assigning responsibility to a single entity, the MTO, for the entire transportation process and its associated liabilities. While the Act represented a significant step towards creating a dedicated legal structure for multimodal transport in India, its effectiveness in addressing contemporary challenges, its alignment with evolving international practices, and the interpretations rendered by the judiciary warrant a thorough and critical examination, which forms the core of this report.

Legal Framework for Multimodal Transportation in India

The evolution of transportation laws in India has been a gradual process, reflecting the changing needs of the economy and the growth of trade. Indian Railways played a pivotal role in the early promotion of multimodal transport, initiating containerization of goods in 1966 and subsequently developing Inland Container Depots (ICDs) 2.

The establishment of the Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) in 1988 further strengthened the infrastructure for inland movement of containerized cargo 2. Recognizing the increasing importance of integrated logistics solutions, the Indian Parliament passed the Multimodal Transport Act in 1993 to establish a standardized regime for MTOs, designating the Director General of Shipping as the competent authority for its implementation 2.

This legislative development aimed to formalize the legal framework for multimodal transport, moving towards a unified approach to manage transportation across various modes. Understanding this historical progression is crucial for appreciating the context in which the 1993 Act was formulated and for identifying areas where it might require updating to address the complexities of the current global logistics landscape.

The Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, provides key definitions that are central to understanding the liability framework. The Act defines a "carrier" as any person undertaking to perform carriage of goods by road, rail, inland waterways, sea, or air, and a "consignor" as the person entrusting goods to an MTO 6. The "consignee" is the person named in the multimodal transport contract to receive the goods, and the "consignment" refers to the goods entrusted to the MTO for multimodal transportation 6.

 "Multimodal transportation" is defined as the carriage of goods by at least two different modes of transport under a single contract from the place of acceptance in India to a place of delivery outside India 6. A "multimodal transport contract" is an agreement where an MTO undertakes to perform or procure the performance of multimodal transportation against payment of freight 6. Crucially, a "multimodal transport operator" is defined as any person who concludes a multimodal transport contract on their own behalf, acts as a principal (not as an agent), and is registered under the Act 6. The Act also distinguishes between "negotiable" and "non-negotiable" multimodal transport documents 7.

These clear legal definitions of the key entities and activities involved in multimodal transport are fundamental for establishing a coherent framework for liability, reducing ambiguity, and providing a common understanding for all stakeholders. However, the Act's definition of "multimodal transportation" specifically mentioning transport from India to outside India has raised questions about its applicability to purely domestic multimodal transport, as highlighted in judicial interpretations.

Despite the establishment of this legal framework, India continues to face significant challenges in developing an efficient and seamless multimodal logistics system. These challenges include high logistics costs, which remain considerably higher than global benchmarks 5. The transportation modal mix is also skewed, with a heavy reliance on road freight compared to more developed economies 5. Procedural complexities, involving multiple government agencies and mandatory approvals, further hinder the ease of doing business in this sector 5. A disintegrated network, skill gaps in managing advanced logistics operations, and coordination issues among different modes of transport also pose substantial obstacles 4.

These underlying logistical challenges can indirectly impact the application and effectiveness of the liability regime under the Act. Inefficiencies in infrastructure and coordination can lead to a higher risk of loss, damage, and delay, potentially increasing liability claims and underscoring the need for a robust legal framework to address these issues in practice.

Analysis of Liability Provisions under the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993

The Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, lays down specific provisions regarding the liability of the MTO. Section 13 of the Act establishes the basis of liability, stating that the MTO is liable for loss or damage to the consignment and for delay in delivery that occurs while the goods are in their charge 6. This liability is based on the principle of presumed fault or neglect on the part of the MTO or their servants or agents 7.

The burden of proof rests on the MTO to demonstrate that the loss, damage, or delay was not attributable to any fault or neglect on their part 7. This approach generally favors the shipper, as the MTO has greater control over the transportation process and is thus expected to provide evidence of due diligence. The effectiveness of this provision, however, depends on the MTO's ability to maintain adequate documentation of their processes and to convincingly prove the absence of negligence.

Regarding liability for delay in delivery, Section 16 of the Act specifies that the MTO is not liable for loss or damage arising from delay, including consequential loss, unless the consignor has made a declaration of interest in timely delivery, which has been accepted by the MTO 6. The Act defines delay in delivery as occurring when the consignment is not delivered within the time expressly agreed upon, or in the absence of such agreement, within a reasonable time expected of a diligent MTO under the circumstances 7.

Furthermore, if the consignment is not delivered within ninety consecutive days following the agreed or reasonable delivery time, the claimant is entitled to consider the consignment as lost 6. These provisions set specific conditions for holding the MTO liable for delays, aiming to protect the MTO from potentially extensive claims for consequential losses when they were not explicitly informed of the critical nature of timely delivery. The interpretation of "reasonable time" in the absence of an express agreement can, however, be a potential source of disputes, requiring judicial consideration based on the specifics of each case.

Sections 14 and 15 of the Act outline the limits of liability for the MTO. Section 14 applies when the nature and value of the consignment have not been declared by the consignor before the MTO takes charge, and the stage of transport where the loss or damage occurred is unknown 7. In such cases, the MTO's liability is limited to the higher of two Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) per kilogram of the gross weight of the lost or damaged consignment or 666.67 SDRs per package or unit lost or damaged 6.

For multimodal transport that does not include carriage by sea or inland waterways, the liability is further limited to 8.33 SDRs per kilogram of the gross weight of the goods lost or damaged 6. Section 15 addresses situations where the nature and value of the consignment were not declared, but the stage of transport where the loss or damage occurred is known 7.

In such instances, the MTO's liability is determined by the relevant law applicable to that specific mode of transport during which the loss or damage occurred 6. Any stipulation in the multimodal transport contract to the contrary is void 7. This dual system of liability limits, based on declared value and the knowledge of the stage of loss, seeks to balance the interests of both shippers and MTOs. The adoption of SDRs aligns with international practices in transport law. However, the application of unimodal limits under Section 15 can introduce complexity, particularly in identifying the precise stage of loss in transports involving multiple modes.

Section 18 of the Act deals with the loss of the right to limit liability. It stipulates that the MTO cannot avail themselves of the limitation of liability if it is proven that the loss, damage, or delay in delivery resulted from an act or omission by the MTO done with the intent to cause such loss, damage, or delay, or recklessly and with knowledge that such a result would probably occur 6.

This provision ensures that MTOs are held fully accountable for their intentional misconduct or gross negligence and cannot seek refuge under the liability limitations provided in the Act in such cases. Proving such intent or recklessness, however, can be a significant challenge for the claimant, and judicial interpretations play a crucial role in defining the threshold for such acts or omissions.

Section 20A of the Act defines the period of responsibility of the MTO, stating that it covers the time from when the MTO takes the goods in their charge until the time of their delivery 6. This "door-to-door" responsibility is a fundamental characteristic of multimodal transport, reinforcing the MTO's role as the single entity accountable for the entire transportation process. Defining the precise moments of "taking charge" and "delivery" can sometimes be complex in practice and may necessitate clear contractual terms or judicial clarification in case of disputes.

Finally, Section 20 of the Act outlines the requirements for notice of loss or damage. It states that the delivery of the consignment to the consignee by the MTO is considered prima facie evidence of delivery as described in the multimodal transport document, unless the consignee provides written notice of the general nature of loss or damage to the MTO at the time of handover 6. If the loss or damage is not apparent, the same applies unless written notice is given by the consignee within six consecutive days after the goods were handed over 6.

These provisions establish a timeframe for the consignee to notify the MTO of any issues with the delivered goods, allowing the MTO to conduct timely investigations and potentially mitigate further losses. Failure to adhere to these notice requirements can potentially weaken the consignee's claim against the MTO.

Comparison with International Liability Regimes

To gain a broader perspective on the Indian liability regime, it is essential to compare it with key international frameworks, namely the Rotterdam Rules and the UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport Documents.

The Rotterdam Rules, formally known as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, represent a modern attempt to harmonize the rules governing international contracts for the transportation of goods, particularly those involving a sea leg 9. Their scope is broader than previous maritime conventions, covering carriage in the liner trade even in the absence of a bill of lading, and applying to shipments to or from a contracting state 11.

A key feature of the Rotterdam Rules is their adoption of a "door-to-door" period of responsibility, commencing when the carrier receives the goods and ending when they are delivered 10. This aligns with the modern realities of multimodal transport. Notably, the Rotterdam Rules eliminate the "nautical fault defense," which had historically protected carriers from liability for negligence in the navigation or management of the ship 10.

The liability limits under the Rotterdam Rules are also increased compared to older regimes, set at the greater of 875 SDR per package or shipping unit, or 3 SDR per kilogram 10. Furthermore, they adopt a more flexible approach to the apportionment of damages when multiple causes contribute to a loss 11. The time limit for bringing a lawsuit under the Rotterdam Rules is two years, longer than the one year under COGSA 10. While the Rotterdam Rules represent a significant modernization of international transport law, they are not yet in force due to a limited number of ratifications 9.

The UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport Documents offer a different approach as they are a set of standard contractual terms that parties can incorporate into their multimodal transport contracts 13. These rules are based on the Hague Rules and Hague-Visby Rules and are compatible with the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP) 13. The basis of liability under these rules is presumed fault on the part of the MTO 13. Similar to the Indian Act, the MTO is responsible for the acts and omissions of their servants, agents, and subcontractors 15.

The liability limits, unless a higher value is declared, are set at 666.67 SDR per package or shipping unit, or 2 SDR per kilogram, whichever is higher. For transport that does not include sea or inland waterways, the limit is 8.33 SDR per kilogram 13. Notably, the UNCTAD/ICC Rules incorporate a network liability system, meaning that when the stage where loss or damage occurred is known, the MTO's liability can be determined by reference to the applicable international convention or mandatory national law that would have applied if a separate contract had been made for that stage 13.

Liability for delay and consequential loss is limited to the freight under the multimodal transport contract 13. The MTO loses the right to limit liability if the loss, damage, or delay resulted from a personal act or omission done with the intent to cause such consequences or recklessly with knowledge that they would probably result 13. As these rules are contractual, their application depends on their incorporation into the transport agreement and they are subject to any applicable mandatory law 14.

Feature	Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993 (India)	Rotterdam Rules	UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport Documents
Scope of Application	International transport from India	International carriage wholly or partly by sea; multimodal with sea leg	Contractual; worldwide application
Period of Responsibility	Taking charge to delivery ("door-to-door")	Receiving to delivery ("door-to-door")	Taking charge to delivery
Basis of Liability	Presumed fault or neglect	Fault-based	Presumed fault or neglect
Nautical Fault Defense	Not explicitly addressed	Eliminated	Available for sea/inland waterway carriage
Liability Limit (General)	Higher of 2 SDR/kg or 666.67 SDR/package (8.33 SDR/kg if no sea/inland waterway)	Higher of 3 SDR/kg or 875 SDR/package	Higher of 2 SDR/kg or 666.67 SDR/package (8.33 SDR/kg if no sea/inland waterway)
Liability for Delay	Limited to freight payable (unless declared interest)	Limited to 2.5 times freight (with overall cap)	Limited to freight payable
Loss of Limitation	Intentional or reckless act/omission	Intentional or reckless act/omission	Intentional or reckless act/omission
Time Limit for Claims	9 months	2 years	9 months (unless otherwise agreed)
Liability System	Modified Uniform (with network element in Sec 15)	Uniform	Network

Network Liability vs. Uniform Liability System

The liability framework in multimodal transport can be broadly categorized into two systems: network liability and uniform liability. The network liability system operates on the principle that the liability of the MTO for loss or damage is determined by the existing mandatory rules governing the specific mode of transport on which the loss or damage occurred 16.

For instance, if goods are damaged during the sea carriage segment, the liability would be determined under maritime conventions like the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules, while damage during road transport would be subject to road carriage conventions like the CMR 16. This system essentially treats the multimodal transport as a series of unimodal transports, each governed by its own set of rules.

In contrast, the uniform liability system applies a single, consistent set of liability rules to the entire multimodal transport operation, irrespective of the mode of transport being used or the stage at which the loss or damage occurs 8. This system aims for simplicity and predictability by subjecting the entire contract to a single body of provisions.

The Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, adopts a modified uniform liability system 8. While the Act establishes a general basis of liability for the MTO for the entire period of responsibility, Section 15 introduces an element of network liability. According to Section 15, if the stage of transport where the loss or damage to an undeclared consignment occurred is known, the MTO's liability is determined by the relevant law applicable to that specific mode of transport, especially concerning the limits of liability 6. This indicates that while the Act provides a primary liability framework applicable throughout the multimodal journey, it defers to the specific liability rules of individual modes when the stage of loss is identified and those rules provide a different liability regime.

This modified uniform approach presents both advantages and disadvantages for stakeholders in India. The uniform aspects offer simplicity and a single point of responsibility for shippers, particularly in cases where the stage of loss cannot be easily determined 17. However, the network element introduced by Section 15 can lead to complexities in ascertaining the applicable law and potentially result in varying levels of compensation depending on the mode of transport where the loss occurred and the specific liability limits under that mode's governing law.

For MTOs, this system requires them to be knowledgeable about the liability regimes of all the modes of transport they utilize. Potential inconsistencies can also arise if the time limits for claims under the Multimodal Act differ from those under the applicable unimodal conventions, potentially creating recourse gaps for MTOs 19. Therefore, while the modified uniform system attempts to balance simplicity with the recognition of specific unimodal rules, it necessitates careful consideration of the interplay between the general provisions of the Act and the specific provisions of other transport laws to fully understand the rights and obligations of all parties involved.

Role and Responsibilities of the Multimodal Transport Operator (MTO) and their Liability

Under the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, the Multimodal Transport Operator (MTO) assumes a central role with significant responsibilities. The Act clearly defines the MTO as a person who concludes a multimodal transport contract on their own behalf, acting as a principal and not merely as an agent for the consignor or the underlying carriers 3.

This principal role signifies that the MTO accepts full responsibility and liability for the performance of the entire transportation contract, acting as the single point of contact for the shipper 3. The MTO is responsible for managing the entire transport operation from the place of acceptance of the goods to the place of delivery, coordinating all necessary modes of transport and handling all matters related to the goods, including potential delays 1.

A key responsibility of the MTO is their liability for loss or damage to the goods that occurs during their period of responsibility, which extends from the time they take the goods in charge until the time of delivery 6. This liability is established under Section 13 of the Act, based on the principle of presumed fault or neglect, as discussed earlier. The MTO is accountable for ensuring the safe and timely delivery of the goods across all the modes of transport involved in the multimodal journey.

Furthermore, the Act mandates that any person carrying on the business of multimodal transportation must be registered under the Act 2. This registration requirement underscores the regulatory intent to ensure that only competent and financially sound entities operate as MTOs in India. The conditions for registration include being a company, firm, or proprietary concern engaged in shipping or freight forwarding with a minimum annual turnover 3.

The Director General of Shipping has been notified as the competent authority for granting registration 5. This mandatory registration aims to protect the interests of shippers by ensuring that MTOs possess the necessary expertise, infrastructure, and financial capability to undertake multimodal transport and meet potential liability claims. Operating as an unregistered MTO is explicitly prohibited under the Act 3.

Judicial Trends and Interpretations of Liability Provisions in India

Indian courts have had the opportunity to interpret the liability provisions of the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, in various cases, providing valuable insights into the practical application of the Act.

In the case of Rameshwar Dass & Sons v. Caravel Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 25, the Delhi High Court examined the applicability of the Act in the context of arbitration. The court noted that while Section 26 of the Act provides freedom to parties to agree on jurisdiction, the Act does not explicitly mandate the referral of disputes related to multimodal transportation to arbitration. This interpretation suggests that while the Act governs liability, other aspects of dispute resolution might require separate agreements or legal frameworks.

The definition of a Multimodal Transport Operator under the Act was considered in Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Premier Sea Foods Exim Pvt. Ltd. 25. The Kerala High Court referred to Section 2(m) of the Act, which defines an MTO as an entity concluding a multimodal transport contract on its own behalf, acting as a principal, and being registered under Section 4. The court also highlighted Section 2(k), defining multimodal transportation as carriage by at least two different modes under a single contract. This case underscores the importance of these definitions in determining whether an entity qualifies as an MTO and whether a particular transport operation falls under the purview of the Act.

The Madras High Court in M/S EXCEL MARITIME LOGISTICS v. M/S SIVA VENTURES LTD 25 clarified the scope of the Act's applicability. The court held that the Act did not apply to a case where the transportation was solely by road and within India, concluding that such a transport was governed by the Carriage by Road Act, 2007. This ruling emphasizes that the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, primarily applies to international multimodal transport originating from India, as per its definition in Section 2(k).

A significant case concerning the applicability of the Act and its limitation period is M/s. Carborandum Universal Ltd. vs. M/s. M.G. International Transports GmbH 26. The Madras High Court ruled that the Act was applicable to a transport involving both road (from Laufenburg, Germany, to Hamburg port) and sea (from Hamburg to Chennai) under a "Negotiable Fiata Multimodal Transport Bill of Lading." Consequently, the court applied the nine-month limitation period stipulated in Section 24 of the Act and found the suit to be time-barred as it was filed after this period. This case demonstrates the court's interpretation of "multimodal transport" to include a necessary pre-carriage by road to the port of loading and the strict enforcement of the Act's limitation period.

Emerging judicial trends indicate a strict interpretation of the definition of multimodal transportation and the Act's applicability, particularly distinguishing between international and domestic transport. Courts also emphasize the importance of the Multimodal Transport Document as evidence of a multimodal transport contract and strictly enforce the nine-month limitation period for filing claims under the Act. Furthermore, courts may scrutinize whether the entity claiming to be an MTO is duly registered under the Act. These trends highlight the need for parties involved in multimodal transport to ensure that their operations clearly meet the Act's definition, proper documentation is in place, claims are filed within the stipulated timeframe, and MTOs are duly registered.

Potential Conflicts and Overlaps with Other Relevant Indian Laws

The liability regime under the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, may potentially conflict or overlap with other Indian laws governing the carriage of goods, particularly the Railways Act, 1989, and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, when multimodal transport involves these modes.

When multimodal transport includes a segment by rail, a potential conflict or overlap exists with the Railways Act, 1989 28. The Railways Act provides a comprehensive legal framework for the carriage of goods by rail, including provisions related to the responsibilities and liabilities of the railway administration as a carrier 29. Notably, the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, has an overriding effect on claims against railway administrations for loss, damage, or non-delivery of goods entrusted to them, and it bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters 29. This distinct legal regime and the specific forum for dispute resolution under the Railways Act could potentially conflict with the general liability provisions and jurisdictional aspects of the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, when loss or damage occurs during the rail segment of a multimodal transport.

Similarly, when multimodal transport involves air carriage, potential conflicts or overlaps may arise with the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 7. This Act incorporates international conventions such as the Montreal Convention and the Warsaw Convention, which govern the liability of air carriers for the carriage of goods in international air transport 29. These conventions establish specific liability limits for cargo, often expressed in SDRs per kilogram, and outline conditions under which carriers may be held liable 29.

These specific liability rules and limitations under the Carriage by Air Act and the incorporated international conventions could potentially conflict with the general liability framework and limits provided in the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, when loss or damage occurs during the air segment of a multimodal journey.

Currently, in the absence of specific provisions within the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, to explicitly address these potential conflicts with other transport-specific laws, Indian courts may resort to general principles of legal interpretation and potentially English Common Law to resolve such issues 28. However, this approach can lead to uncertainty and a lack of consistent application.

To achieve better legal coherence, potential solutions could involve amending the Multimodal Act to clearly define its relationship with other transport laws, perhaps by establishing a hierarchy or specific rules of precedence in cases of conflict. Harmonizing the liability provisions across different transport laws in India could also help reduce potential overlaps and ambiguities. Encouraging parties to clearly define the applicable liability regime in their multimodal transport contracts, within the bounds of mandatory legal provisions, could also provide greater clarity. Consistent and clear judicial pronouncements on how to resolve conflicts between different transport laws in the context of multimodal transport would also contribute to a more predictable legal landscape.

Conclusion and Recommendations
The Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, represents a significant step towards regulating liability in multimodal transportation in India by establishing a framework centered around the Multimodal Transport Operator (MTO) acting as a principal responsible for the entire door-to-door movement of goods under a single contract. The Act adopts a modified uniform liability system, generally holding the MTO liable for loss, damage, or delay based on presumed fault, but also incorporating elements of network liability by deferring to unimodal laws when the stage of loss is known and those laws provide different liability limits. Judicial interpretations have clarified the scope of the Act, primarily focusing on international transport from India, emphasizing the importance of the Multimodal Transport Document, and strictly enforcing the nine-month limitation period for claims.

However, the current legal framework has certain limitations and faces challenges. The Act's definition of multimodal transport primarily focusing on international carriage might create a gap for domestic multimodal movements. Potential conflicts and overlaps with sector-specific laws like the Railways Act and the Carriage by Air Act remain areas of concern. While the Act aims for uniformity, the modified approach and the reliance on unimodal laws in certain situations can introduce complexity and potential inconsistencies.

To enhance the clarity, efficiency, and fairness of the liability regime for multimodal transportation in India, the following recommendations are proposed:

1. Amend the Definition of Multimodal Transportation: Consider amending Section 2(k) of the Act to explicitly include domestic multimodal transportation to ensure comprehensive coverage and avoid ambiguity regarding its applicability.
    
2. Address Conflicts with Unimodal Laws: Introduce specific provisions within the Multimodal Act to address potential conflicts or overlaps with the Railways Act, 1989, and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. This could involve establishing rules of precedence or harmonizing key liability provisions across these statutes.
    
3. Review and Update Liability Limits: Periodically review and update the SDR-based liability limits specified in Sections 14 and 15 of the Act to ensure they remain adequate in light of inflation and changes in the value of goods.
    
4. Clarify the Application of Section 15: Provide clearer guidelines or examples on how Section 15 (application of unimodal laws when the stage of loss is known) should be applied in practice, particularly in cases involving multiple modes and potentially conflicting liability limits.
    
5. Promote Awareness and Capacity Building: Conduct awareness programs for shippers, MTOs, and legal professionals regarding the provisions of the Act, relevant judicial interpretations, and best practices in documentation and claims handling.
    
6. Consider Ratification of International Conventions: Evaluate the potential benefits of ratifying international conventions like the Rotterdam Rules, which offer a modern and comprehensive framework for maritime and multimodal transport liability. While ratification may take time, aligning domestic laws with such international standards can enhance India's position in global trade.

By implementing these recommendations, India can further strengthen its legal framework for multimodal transportation, fostering greater confidence among stakeholders, reducing the potential for disputes, and promoting the efficient and secure movement of goods, thereby supporting the growth of the Indian economy and its participation in international trade.

References:

1. Current State of Multimodal Transport Development in India, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.jusdaglobal.com/en/article/current-state-multimodal-transport-development-india/
2. Multimodal Transport in India – A Basic Perspective, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.investindia.gov.in/team-india-blogs/multimodal-transport-india-basic-perspective
3. indiajuris.com, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://indiajuris.com/library/2024/07/c1392973093vlogistics.pdf
4. challenges in the operation of multimodal transport system: the case of indian shipping and logistics service - aarf.asia, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.aarf.asia/current/2017/Aug/VFQQGu9BSsn6MkU.pdf
5. Multimodal Transportation And Multimodal Logistics: Status, Advantages, And Challenges - PWOnlyIAS, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://pwonlyias.com/current-affairs/multimodal-transport-hub/
6. The Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993 - Cochin Port Trust, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.cochinport.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-09/TheMultimodal.pdf
7. THE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS ACT, 1993 ______ ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS - India Code, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1946/1/a1993-28.pdf
8. Multimodal Transportation of Goods in Global and Indian Perspective - A and V Publication, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://anvpublication.org/Journals/HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=International+Journal+of+Advances+in+Social+Sciences%3BPID%3D2015-3-1-6
9. Rotterdam rules - Ratification status in the US and effectiveness of choosing to apply them voluntarily, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-us/knowledge/publications/aacbaf04/rotterdam-rules--ratification-status-in-the-us-and-effectiveness-of-choosing-to-apply-them-voluntari
10. Rotterdam Rules - Wikipedia, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Rules
11. The Rotterdam Rules | Blank Rome LLP, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.blankrome.com/publications/rotterdam-rules
12. ROTTERDAM RULES KEY PROVISIONS - West of England P&I Club, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.westpandi.com/globalassets/news/rotterdamruleskeyprovisions.pdf
13. UNCTAD ICC rules for combined transport | PDF | Legal Liability ..., accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/808563619/UNCTAD-ICC-rules-for-combined-transport
14. TDN 932(2)SITE - United Nations Commission On International Trade Law |, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/quest-unctad-eng_1.pdf
15. unctad.org, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/posdtetlbd2a1.en.pdf
16. Multimodal transport documents and the UCP 600 - Frequently asked questions on the MMTD document - LCViews -, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.lcviews.com/index.php?page_id=18
17. Carrier Liability in Multimodal Transport - Lund University, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lup/publication/5432520
18. Multimodal Transport and Regulation - What the future holds - The Legal Compass, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.thelegalcompass.co.uk/post/multimodal-transport-and-regulation-what-the-future-holds
19. Multimodal Transport Operators‟ Liability Regimes under the UN Multimodal Transport Convention 1980 and UNCTAD / ICC Rules 1992, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v11i6/SR22607082539.pdf
20. Standard Conditions Governing Multimodal Transport Documents issued in - Yusen Logistics, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.yusen-logistics.com/sites/default/files/2022-03/YLIN Terms and Conditions.pdf
21. 5 MULTI MODAL AND INTER MODAL TRANSPORT, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.nios.ac.in/media/documents/379_BoT/Chapter-5.pdf
22. Multimodal transport operator (MTO): Why it's important - Container xChange, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.container-xchange.com/blog/multimodal-transport-operator/
23. The Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993 - Indian Kanoon, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1998827/
24. Rights & duties of multimodal transport operator under multimodal transportation act 1993: Analysis - lawjournals.org, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.lawjournals.org/assets/archives/2021/vol7issue4/7-3-82-516.pdf
25. multimodal+transportation+contract | Indian Case Law - CaseMine, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/search/in/multimodal%2Btransportation%2Bcontract
26. multimodal transportation limitation doctypes: judgments - Indian Kanoon, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=++multimodal+transportation+cases+limitation
27. www.mhc.tn.gov.in, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/206930
28. Carriage Laws and Multi-modal transport of Goods - caaa.in, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://www.caaa.in/Image/Carriage Laws and Multi-modal transport of Goods.pdf
29. Laws governing Carriage of Goods in India, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://nja.gov.in/Concluded_Programmes/2016-17/P-992_PPTs/04 Session 3 Dheeraj Nair Carriage.pdf
30. Carriage by Air Act ( RSC , 1985, c. C-26) - Laws.justice.gc.ca, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-26/page-7.html
31. Limits of liability for passengers and goods | Canadian Transportation Agency, accessed on March 30, 2025, https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/limits-liability-passengers-and-goods