Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. P. Mitra
LALCHAND CHOWDHURY - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondent
Suit 4352 Of 1949
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 23, 1959
RAILWAYS ACT - S. 77 - NOTICE - S. 80 - NOTICE - JURISDICTION - LIMITATION ACT, ART. 31 - CARRIER - LIABILITY - DAMAGES - MEASURE OF.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff purchased 11 bales of hard waste from a consignor at Ahmedabad and paid Rs. 8,778-6-0 for the same. The consignor endorsed the P.W. bills in favour of the plaintiff and handed them over to him. The plaintiff sent the P.W. bills to the Railway Administration for verification of his claim. The goods were booked at Ahmedabad on 7-5-1948 and arrived at Naihati on 7-6-1948. They were seized by the Land Customs Authority and were lying in the Railway godown under orders of the Customs Officer. The plaintiff was not informed of the seizure of the goods. On 20-10-1948 the plaintiff served notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. On 15-2-1949 the plaintiff served notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The goods were released by the Land Customs Authority on 7-2-1950 and were despatched to the Manipur Road Station. The goods reached the destination on 7th April, 1950 and were unloaded there. The plaintiff refused to take delivery of the goods on the ground that they were damaged and unmerchantable. The plaintiff filed a suit for compensation for non-delivery of the goods.
Finding of the Court:
1. The P.W. bills were endorsed for valuable consideration in favour of the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 2 of the plaint. 2. The goods were not lost or not delivered due to the negligence or misconduct or want of care or attention on the part of the Railway Administration. 3. The defendant did not agree to tender or deliver the goods to the plaintiff within a reasonable time. 4. The plaintiff wrongfully refused to take delivery of the goods when offered as alleged in paragraph 4 (a) of the written statement. 5. The court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 6. The suit is not barred by limitation. 7. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the price that he had paid for the goods.
Issues: 1. Were P. W. bills endorsed for valuable consideration in favour of the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 2 of the plaint? 2. Were the goods lost or not delivered due to the negligence or misconduct or want of care or attention on the part of the Railway Administration? 3. Did the defendant agree to tender or deliver the goods to the plaintiff within a reasonable time? 4. Did the plaintiff wrongfully refuse to take delivery of the goods when offered as alleged in paragraph 4 (a) of the written statement? 5. Has the court jurisdiction to try the suit? 6. Is the suit barred by limitation? 7. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Railway Administration is bound to carry the goods under ordinary circumstances within a reasonable time. If any loss accrues to the owner of the goods on account of delay in delivery, the railway company is not liable unless the delay is unreasonable. 2. Where there is evidence that delay is unreasonable and the goods such as fireworks are not ordinarily saleable in the market except at certain times of the year, the plaintiff is justified in refusing to take delivery of the goods unless the company is willing to compensate him for the deterioration of their value and for the loss caused to him by the delay. 3. In the instant case, the goods were detained at Naihati by the Customs Authorities. It was the duty of the Railway Administration to inform the consignor or the consignee to take steps for the release of the goods for onward despatch from Naihati to the Manipur Road Station through the territory of Pakistan. 4. The Railway Administration failed to inform the consignor or the consignee of the detention of the goods. There was unusual and unreasonable delay in the arrival of the goods at the destination with the result that the goods so much deteriorated in quality as to have become unmerchantable and were of no use to the plaintiff. 5. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the price that he had paid for the goods.
Final Decision: Decree for Rs. 8,778/6/-; for interest on judgment at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and for costs.
( 1 ) IN this suit the plaintiff states that on the 7th May, 1948 at Ahmedabad Station, 11 bales of hard waste under three several Parcel Way bills valued at Rs. 9,180/- all belonging for the plaintiff were delivered to the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway and were accepted by them for carriage, under a contract entered into by and between the Railway and the consignor thereof. The contract is evidenced by the Parcel Way bills. The plaintiff had purchased the goods for valuable consideration. The Parcel Way bills were endorsed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was at all material times, and still is, the true owner of all the goods and as the holder and endorsee of the Parcel Way bills is entitled to the benefits of the contract with the said Railway. The B. B. and C. I. Railway agreed to carry for reward these 11 bundles of hard waste from Ahmedabad Station on the said Railway to Manipur Road Station on the Assam Railway through the Great Indian Peninsular Railway, the East Indian Railway, the Oudh Trihut Railway and the Assam' Railway and to deliver the sarhe to the consignee or its assigns. All these Railways are now owned and administered by the Union of India. In breach of the agreement these Railways or any of the Railways through which the goods had to pass failed and neglected to carry the goods safely to the plaintiff within a reasonable time pr at all. The loss occasioned by non-delivery is due to gross negligence, misconduct and want of due care and attention of the servants of the Railway Administrations and as such the plaintiff is entitled to compensation assessed at Rupees 9,180/ -. Notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act has been served on the defendant. Notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been served within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff has claimed, inter alia, Rupees 9,180/-, interest and costs.
( 2 ) THE suit was instituted on 21-11-1949. The original written statement was filed on behalf of the Dominion of India as representing the East Indian Railway on 31-3-1950. Some of its paragraphs were amended under an order of this Court made on the 11th July, 1956. The defence in the written statement as amended, inter alia, is that the consignments under the said Parcel Way bills were correctly despatched from the forwarding station and arrived in due course of transit at the Nainhati Station on 7-6-1948. But the goods were seized by the Land Customs Authority and detained there on the 8th June, 1948 for examination thereof. The goods were ultimately released by the Land Customs Authority on 7-2-1950. the goods were then despatched in good condition by the East Indian Railway from the Naihati Station to the Manipur Road Station. The goods reached the destination on dated 7th April, 195ft and were unloaded there. The defendant informed the plaintiff in writing about the arrival of the goods at the destination but the plaintiff refused to take delivery thereof. The defendant's liability in respect of the goods ceased after the plaintiff had refused delivery as aforesaid. The seizure and detention of the consignments by the Land Customs Authority occurred in circumstances beyond the control of the Railway Administration which is not responsible and answerable for the same. The Railway Administration, their agents or servants took all reasonable and proper care for the security and transit of the goods. The Railways or any of them did not guarantee delivery of the goods within any definite time nor was there any time stipulated for the same and the booking of the consignments was subject to the exigencies incidental to railway traffic. In the premises, the claim made by the plaintiff is denied. In any event the compensation claimed is grossly inflated and exaggerated. The defendant also denies the validity or sufficiency or due service of the notices under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Pr
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
