PATNA HIGH COURT
Tarkeshwar Nath and K.K.Dutta JJ.
Sobharam Jokhiram
Versus
Union Of India
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 225 of 1966 ;
Decided On : MAY 16, 1969
RAILWAYS ACT - SECTION 74A - SECTION 74C - SECTION 74D - OWNERS RISK RATE - NEGLIGENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - DISCLOSURE - LABEL "NOT TO BE LOOSE SHUNTED" - EVIDENCE - INFERENCE - DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff claimed compensation for shortage in delivery of cocoanut oil due to damage to tins during transit. The consignment was booked at owner's risk rate and the tins were not packed in cases or crates as prescribed by the rules. The trial court found negligence on the part of the railway servants and awarded damages. The lower appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the damage was not due to negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of Section 74A of the Railways Act were not applicable as the forwarding note was not produced to prove the defective packing. The court also held that the provisions of Section 74C applied and the railway administration was not liable for the loss unless negligence or misconduct was proved. The court further held that the railway administration was not bound to make any disclosure under Section 74D as the non-delivery of the whole consignment or any package was not proved. The court also held that the failure of the railway administration to affix the label "not to be loose shunted" amounted to negligence, but the plaintiff failed to prove that the damage was caused due to loose shunting.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 74A of the Railways Act were applicable. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 74C applied and the railway administration was not liable for the loss unless negligence or misconduct was proved. 3. Whether the railway administration was bound to make any disclosure under Section 74D. 4. Whether the failure of the railway administration to affix the label "not to be loose shunted" amounted to negligence. 5. Whether the plaintiff failed to prove that the damage was caused due to loose shunting.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Section 74A of the Railways Act were not applicable as the forwarding note was not produced to prove the defective packing. 2. The provisions of Section 74C applied and the railway administration was not liable for the loss unless negligence or misconduct was proved. 3. The railway administration was not bound to make any disclosure under Section 74D as the non-delivery of the whole consignment or any package was not proved. 4. The failure of the railway administration to affix the label "not to be loose shunted" amounted to negligence, but the plaintiff failed to prove that the damage was caused due to loose shunting.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were affirmed.
Dutta, J.
1. This appeal arises put of a suit for recovery of compensation on account of shortage in delivery out of a consignment of 696 tins of cocoanut oil, which were booked from Trichur station of the Southern Railway to Sahebganj station of the Eastern Railway on 30-3-6C under Railway Receipt No. 470341 Invoice No. 13. The consignment reached Sahebganj Railway station on 22-4-60 and thereafter, open delivery was taken by the plaintiffs in whose favour the railway Receipt had been transferred. 289 tins of cocoanut oil were found to have become dented and leaky and out of these. 71 tins were found to be completely empty and the remaining 218 tins were partly empty and this had resulted in a shortage of 42 maunds 2 seers of cocoanut oil and aforesaid 289 tins were further alleged to have become completely unserviceable. The shortage, according to the plaintiff was caused by the negligence and misconduct on the part of the Southern Railway, South Eastern Railway and Eastern Railway and their servants. The plaintiff claimed to have duly issued notices under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the General Managers of the aforesaid Railways, but they failed to satisfy the plaintiffs claim. On these allegations, the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, claiming a sum of Rs. 3805/8/, on account of the value of 42 maunds 2 seers of cocoa-nut oil and a further sum of Rs. 433/8/- on account of the price of 289 tins besides some other amounts, the total claim being for Rs. 4700.
2. A written statement was filed in the suit by the Union of India as owner of the Eastern Railway and, subsequently, the same written statement was adopted by the Union of India as owner of the Southern Railway and South Eastern Railway also. The defendant challenged the plaintiffs allegation about the aforesaid loss being due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration concerned or their servants. The damage caused to the tins and the resulting shortage due to leakage therefrom were ascribed as being solely due to the failure of the consignors in packing the tins properly in cases or crates in accordance with the Tariff Rules and also due to their failure to provide sufficient dunnage in between the tins in consequence of which these could not stand the strain due to normal oscillation of the train in course of the long journey of over 1000 miles. The defendant further alleged that the consignments had been booked at the risk of the consignor and after booking the tins were loaded in Wagon No. 49588 of Northern Railway in presence of the senders agent at Trichur and after loading the wagon was properly sealed and rivetted in his presence and subsequently the wagon reached Sahebganj with both sides original seals and rivets intact. The fact that on opening the wagon at Sahebganj in presence of the plaintiffs agent. 71 tins were found to be entirely empty and 218 tins partly empty resulting in the total shortage of 42 maunds 2 seers of cocoanut oil was admitted. The defendant further denied the legality and validity of the service of notices under Section 77 of the Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the claim as made by the plaintiff was further alleged to be highly inflated and exaggerated. Pleas of limitation as well as non-maintainability of the suit as framed was also taken.
3. The issues regarding limitation and invalidity of the service of notices under Section 77 of the Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and non-maintainability of the suit were decided against the defendant and the correctness of these findings was not challenged in the present appeal. The trial court further held that there was failure on the part of the Railway servants to affix the label not to be loose shunted on the wagon in which the consignment was carried and the damage to the tins of cocoanut oil, which had resulted in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.