Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha, J.
Banwari Lal Podar
Versus
Road Transport Corporation
Appeal from Original Decree No. 63 of 1979 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 9, 1989
CARRIERS ACT, 1865 - SECTION 8 - CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - SECTION 166 - OWNERSHIP OF GOODS - LIABILITY OF CARRIER - BAILMENT - DELIVERY OF GOODS TO REAL OWNER - ESTOPPEL - INJUNCTION - DAMAGES - INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for damages against the defendant, a common carrier, for non-delivery of 15 bales of cotton yarn. The plaintiffs claimed that they had delivered the goods to the defendant at Gaya for carriage to Ranchi, but the defendant failed to deliver them. The defendant contended that the goods were initially booked by a third party, M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar, to be delivered to another firm. The defendant alleged that M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar had mistakenly delivered the consignment note to the plaintiffs, who took advantage of the mistake and obtained delivery of the goods from the defendant. The defendant further stated that it had received a telegram from M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar requesting it not to deliver the goods to the plaintiffs. The defendant also filed a suit against M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar and the plaintiffs, seeking an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from taking delivery of the goods. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove ownership of the goods and were not entitled to any relief.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages from the defendant because they had not suffered any loss or damage. The Court found that the defendant had delivered the goods to M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar in compliance with an order of the Civil Judge, Nagpur, and that the plaintiffs had not challenged the order before any higher Court. The Court also held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to an equitable relief because they had taken advantage of a mistake made by M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar. The Court further held that the defendant was not liable to the plaintiffs for damages because it had acted in good faith in delivering the goods to M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were the owners of the goods or not? 2. Whether the plaintiffs could obtain a decree for damages, as prayed for, despite the fact that the defendant-company had delivered the goods to M/s. Lakshminarayan Gaurishankar in terms of the order dt. 25-3-1971 passed in Civil Suit No. 118 of 1971? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the interest on the amount of damages?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The plaintiffs were not the owners of the goods because they had not paid the full price for them. 2. The plaintiffs were not entitled to damages because they had not suffered any loss or damage. The defendant had delivered the goods to M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar in compliance with an order of the Civil Judge, Nagpur, and the plaintiffs had not challenged the order before any higher Court. 3. The plaintiffs were not entitled to interest on the amount of damages because they had not suffered any loss or damage.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal.
1. This first appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dt. 24-3-1979 passed by Shri R.P. Sinha, Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi in Money Suit No. 93/4 of 1971-78 whereby and whereunder the said learned Court dismissed the plaintiffs- appellants suit.
2. The plaintiffs-appellants filed the aforementioned suit for a decree for damages for a sum of Rs. 33,000.00 purporting to be on account of non-delivery of 15 bales of cotton yarn by the defendant. The aforementioned suit was filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiff 2 carries on joint family business of which plaintiff No. 1 is the Karta and managing member thereof and they carry on business at Ranchi. Admittedly, the defendant is a common carrier carrying on business of transport of goods from one place to another on hire. The plaintiffs in their plaint alleged that on 22/23-11-1970 the plaintiff 1 delivered 15 bales of cotton yarn of count 17NF to the defendant at Gaya for carriage by motor transport to Ranchi. The defendant undertook to carry the said goods to Ranchi and made over the consignment note bearing No. 309 to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have further contended that in terms of the contract as also in terms of the provision of law the defendant was liable to carry and deliver the goods to the plaintiffs at Ranchi which it failed to do.
3. The defence of the defendants, on the other hand, as alleged in the written statement is that the aforementioned 15 bales of cotton yarn were initially booked by M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar, a firm of Nagpur to be delivered to another firm. According to the defendant the said M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar was merely to deliver 2 bales of cotton yarn to the plaintiffs-appellants but by mistake the consignment note in respect of aforementioned 15 bales of cotton yarn was delivered to the plaintiffs-appellants.
4. The plaintiffs appellants, allegedly, taking advantage of the aforementioned mistake on the part of M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar, got the delivery of the same from the bank and had obtained delivery of the consignment from the defendant at Gaya on 21-12-1970. It was further alleged that on 23-11-1970 the plaintiffs purported to have booked the said goods for its transportation to Ranchi wherefore the aforementioned consignment note was given to the plaintiffs. The further case of the defendant appears to be that it, however, received a telegram on 9-12-1970 whereby and whereunder it was requested by M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar not to deliver the said goods to the plaintiffs.
5. The defendant in their written statement, inter alia, stated the fact of the matter in para 10 thereof which reads as follows :-
"That one M/s. Laxminarayan Gaurishankar at Nagpur gave 15 bales of cotton yarn being bales Nos. 1391, 1373, 1363, 1359, 1239, 1290, 1263, 1231, 1315, 1316, 1387, 1399, 1265, 1226 and 1232 to this defendants branch office at Nagpur at the risk of the owner under Consignment Note No. 18112 dt. 14-11-1970 consigned to Self at Gaya. The goods duly reached Gaya. M/s. Jwala Dutt Banwarilal, Ranchi at Gaya took delivery of the goods on production of the consignees copy of Consignment Note on 21-11-1970. The said bales were asked to be carried by M/s. Jwaladutt Banwarilal Ranchi to Ranchi and to deliver to M/s. Jwaladutt Banwarilal who was named as a consignee in the Consignment Note No. 3096 dt. 23-11-1970. Though the goods were taken delivery of on 21-11-1970, the said goods were not removed physically, from the godown of this defendant. The said goods were rebooked for Ranchi as stated above. On receipt of a complaint from M/s. Lakshminarayan Gaurishankar that the goods were not meant for delivery to M/s. Jwaladutt Banwarilal but for some other party the goods were detained by this defendant at its godowns requesting the said M/s. Lakshminarayan Gaurishankar of Nagpur to obtain necessary orders for giving delivery of the goods of that firm from a competent Court. Accordingly the said M/s
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
