A consignee of goods, who is not a party to the contract of consignment and who is not the owner of the goods, cannot maintain a suit for compensation for loss or damage to the goods.

Headnote:
RAILWAY RECEIPT - CONSIGNEE - RIGHT TO SUE FOR COMPENSATION - OWNERSHIP OF GOODS - CONTRACT OF CONSIGNMENT - BREACH OF CONTRACT - MISCONDUCT OF RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION - CAUSE OF ACTION - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs, commission agents from Delhi, challenged the decree dismissing their suit against the Dominion of India for compensation for damage to three consignments of plantains sent by rail from Kajgaon to Delhi. The plaintiffs were consignees of the goods, but not owners, and the consignments were booked at reduced rates under a Risk Note. The railway administration contended that the plaintiffs had no cause of action, that the claim was barred by limitation, and that the compensation claimed was excessive.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiffs, as mere consignees and not owners of the goods, had no cause of action to sue for compensation for damage to the consignments. The court also held that the railway administration was liable for breach of contract in not sending the goods by passenger train as requested in the Forwarding Notes, but that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation under the Risk Note.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs, as consignees of the goods, had a cause of action to sue for compensation for damage to the consignments. 2. Whether the railway administration was liable for breach of contract in not sending the goods by passenger train as requested in the Forwarding Notes. 3. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation under the Risk Note.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A consignee of goods, who is not a party to the contract of consignment and who is not the owner of the goods, cannot maintain a suit for compensation for loss or damage to the goods. 2. The railway administration is liable for breach of contract if it fails to send the goods by the mode of transport requested in the Forwarding Note. 3. The plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation under the Risk Note, which absolved the railway administration from liability for loss or damage to the goods.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgment -

1. The plaintiffs, who are commission agents residing at Delhi have by this appeal challenged the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Jalgaon in Special Suit No. 12 of 1950 dismissing their suit against the Dominion of India.

2. The facts which give rise to the claim made by the plaintiffs are briefly these : One Malhari Bhika loaded a wagon at Kajgaon station on the Central Railway with raw plantains and obtained Parcel Way Bill No. 7934/79 on 21st October 1948 for carriage of the consignment to Delhi. The goods loaded by Malhari Bhika were then sold to Peer Mahomed and Sons. The Parcel Way Bill was obtained in the name of Malhari Bhika as consignor and consignees were the plaintiffs. The Forwarding Note is Exhibit 93, dated 21st October 1948, and by that Forwarding Note Malhari Bhika requested the Station Master at Kajgaon to receive and forward by passenger train the parcel described therein to Delhi Junction Station at reduced rates as per Risk Note on the reverse signed by him. The consignment was booked at reduced rates. This consignment reached Delhi on 36th October 1948. It appears that between Kajgaon and itarsi the wagon was attached to 39 Dn. Parcel Train and beyond Itarsi it was attached to a mixed passenger train. In the normal course by passenger train from Kajgaon this wagon should have reached Dehli on 23rd October 1948. On arrival at the Delhi Station the contents of the wagon were found to be damaged and the loss was estimated as of the value of Rs. 2,700/-.

3. On 22nd October 1948, peer Mahomed and Sons signed a Forwarding Note for a wagon-load of plantains from Kajgaon to Delhi By the Forwarding Note the Station Master at Kajgaon was requested to forward the wagon by passenger train. Parcel Way Bill No. 7934/83, dated 22nd October 1948. was obtained in the name Of Peer Mahomed and Sons as consignors and the consignees were the plaintiffs. This consignment was also booked at reduced rates, The wagon was loaded on 22nd October 1948 and between Kajgaon and Itarsi the wagon was attached to 33 Dn. Parcel train and at Itarsi it was attached to a mixed passenger train. In the normal course, if it had been carried by passenger train, the consignment should have reached Delhi on 24th October 1948. but it reached Delhi on 26th October 1948. and on opening the wagon the contents were found to be damaged. The loss was assessed at Rs. 4,125/-.

4. On 29th September 1948. Peer Mahomed and Sons had signed a Forwarding Note for a wagon-load of plantains from Kajgaon to Delhi. The Parcel Way Bill was No. 7933/63, dated 26th September 1948. The consignors wire Peer Mahomed and Sons and the consignees were the plaintiffs. The wagon was attached to 39 Dn. Parcel Train up to Itarsi and from Itarsi it was attached to a mixed passenger train. In the normal course, the wagon should have reached Delhi on 1st October 1946 if sent by passenger train; but it reached Delhi on 5th October 1948. On arrival at Delhi the contents of the wagon were found to be damaged and the loss was assessed at Rs. 2,200/-. By ths Forwarding Note in this case also Peer Mahomed and Sons had requested the railway administration to send the consignment by passenger train but it was sent by parcel train from Kajgaon to Itarsi. The goods were booked at reduced rates under a Risk Note.

5. The plaintiffs served notice upon the railway administration and the Dominion of India claiming Rs. 10.061/12/- as compensation for damage to the three consignnments. In reply to the claim made by the plaintiffs it was asserted by the Superintendent of Claims by letters exhibits 141. 143 and 111 that the consignments were carried throughout by passenger train as per contract without any avoidable delay and that there was up misconduct on the part of the railway administration. The railway administration having rejected the claim, the plaintiffs filed Special Regular Suit No. 13 of 1950 in the court of the Civil Judge. Senior Division, at Jalgaon agai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document