HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Guha
DOMINION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
NETAI CHANDRA HALDAR - Respondent
A. F. A. D. 918 Of 1948
Decided On : NOVEMBER 20, 1951
RAILWAYS ACT - SECTION 77 - REFUSAL TO REWEIGH GOODS - LIABILITY OF RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION - NO OBLIGATION TO REWEIGH GOODS - CONSIGNEE'S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT DELIVERY - NO RIGHT TO CLAIM DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sued the Dominion of India, as the owner of the East Indian Railway Administration, for damages for goods not delivered. Two consignments of soft coke were booked from Kusander Railway Station to Chatra Railway Station under two Invoices. The plaintiff sent a claim under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act to the General Manager, East Indian Railway, regarding the second consignment. The Railway Authorities intimated that the consignment was available for delivery at Chatra Station. Suspecting shortage, the plaintiff demanded delivery after reweighment. The Coal Area Superintendent directed delivery of the goods to the plaintiff on reweighment as a special case if the plaintiff was prepared to pay costs of such reweighment. The plaintiff was not prepared to pay such costs and claimed the reweighment free of charge. Ultimately, the Railway Company refused to give delivery of the goods after reweighment as claimed by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The Railway Administration was under no obligation to reweigh the goods and the plaintiff could not claim the right to reweigh at all. The plaintiff's refusal to accept delivery without reweighment was at his own risk.
Issues: Whether the Railway Administration was liable for damages for refusing to reweigh the goods before delivery.
Ratio Decidendi: The Railway Administration is under no obligation to reweigh goods before delivering them to the consignee. The consignee cannot claim the right to reweigh the goods as a condition for accepting delivery. If the consignee refuses to accept delivery without reweighment, he does so at his own risk and cannot claim damages from the Railway Administration.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the Railway Administration was held to have no liability in respect of the goods covered by Invoice No. 2.
( 1 ) THIS appeal by the Dominion of India as the owner of the East Indian Railway Administration arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1145-12-0 as damages for goods not delivered. Two consignments of soft coke in two different wagons were booked from Kusander Railway Station to Chatra Railway Station under two Invoices, the first consignment being under Invoice No. 1 and the second consignment being booked under Invoice No. 2. By the 2nd consignment 23 tons of soft coal were sent. When this 2nd consignment reached Chatra Railway Station the plaintiff sent a claim under Section 77, Indian Railways Act to the General Manager, East Indian Railway. Thereupon an intimation was sent to him by the Railway Authorities that the consignment was available for delivery at Chatra Station. Suspecting shortage, however, owing to certain circumstances the plaintiff demanded delivery after reweighment. The Coal Area Superintendent directed delivery of the goods to the plaintiff on reweighment as a special case if the plaintiff was prepared to pay costs of such reweighment. The plaintiff was not, however, prepared to pay such costs and claimed the reweighment free of charge. Ultimately the Railway Company refused to give delivery of the goods after reweighment as claimed by the plaintiff. Accordingly the present suit has been instituted. The price of the goods covered by Invoice No. 2 is Rs. 471-13-0. The present appeal is in respect of this amount only, liability for Invoice No. 1 being accepted. The suit was decreed in full in the trial Court but in the lower appellate Court the plaintiff obtained a partial decree only.
( 2 ) AS has been observed before the present appeal is confined only to the liability in respect of Invoice No. 2. It is contended by Mr. Bose on behalf of the Railway Administration that in respect of the goods covered by this Invoice i. e. No. 2 the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief at all in the circumstances of the present case inasmuch as refusal on the part of the Railway Administration to reweigh does not amount to a refusal on their part to deliver the goods. It has been argued by him that it was up to the plaintiff to take delivery of the goods without claiming the reweighment either free of costs or on payment of costs and later on if the plaintiff found upon reweighment that there was shortage in the amount of goods originally consigned to him it was for him to claim damages for such shortage in weight. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff was justified in demanding delivery of the consignment after reweighment and that he was within his rights when he refused to take delivery on the refusal of the Railway Company to give delivery of the consignment after reweighment free of costs. It has been urged before me on behalf of the appellant that these findings of the lower appellate Court are based upon a totally erroneous conception of the relevant law on the point as enunciated in a series of decisions of various High Courts including this Court. Mr. Bose argues that it is not the case that the plaintiff challenged the identity of the goods that arrived at Chatra Station. He argued that had that been the case different considerations would have arisen. His argument further is that the Railway Administration was under no obligation whatsoever to reweigh the goods nor could the plaintiff claim as a matter of right that the goods must be reweigh-ed before he agreed to take delivery of the same. In other words, according to Mr. Bose's contention, the plaintiff is to thank only himself for not taking delivery of the goods and as he failed to to take delivery he is not entitled to claim damages from the Railway Administration. In support of his contention Mr. Bose has drawn my attention to a number of rulings of different High Courts e. g. Janki Das v. Bengal Nagpur Rly. Co. , 16 Cal. W. N. 356, East Indian Ely. Co. v. Sispal Lal, 16 Cal. W.
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.