A2A:Short Answer: No.Long Answer: Bills of lading represent a major statutory exception to the doctrine of privity of contract, because of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1992.In the context of the contract of carriage, however, the fact that the bill is a symbol representing the goods during transit has the following consequences:(a) The holder of the bill controls the goods during transit. (b) A lawful holder of the bill, by of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, has title to sue under the contract of carriage as if he had been an original party to it. He becomes subject to liabilities under the contract only when he takes or demands delivery of the goods from the carrier, or initiates a claim for loss or damage.(c) The holder is entitled to delivery of the cargo at the port of discharge on presentation of the bill of lading.Furthermore, In New Zealand Shipping v. A.M. Satterthwaite, the Privy Council considering 'Himalaya clause', had to consider whether an exclusion clause contained in a bill of lading (B/L) could be relied upon by a third party stevedore employed by a carrier in a suit by consignees for negligently damaging the goods while unloading them. The Privy council gave to the stevedores the benefit of the exemptions and limitations contained in the bill of lading by regarding that the shipper had made an offer of a unilateral contract to the stevedores to unload the goods on terms incorporating the exclusion clause, which offer the stevedores had accepted by commencing the work, and held that the carrier had contracted to the exclusion clause as an agent for its servants, agents and independent contractors, and therefore, was designed to cover the whole carriage from loading to discharge, by whomsoever it is performed. The performance attracted the exemption or immunity in favor of whoever the performer turned out to be.PS: I am not a Lawyer or a Law Student. I donu2019t vouch for the accuracy of the answers given by me.