Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Pratibha Bonnerjea
TRADERS SYNDICATE - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Suit 831 Of 1968
Decided On : 07/21/1982
RAILWAYS ACT, 1890 - SECT. 78B, 80 - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ART. 11 - CARRIAGE OF GOODS - NOTICE UNDER SECT. 78B - VALIDITY - OWNERSHIP OF GOODS - ENDORSEMENT OF RAILWAY RECEIPT - EFFECT - LIMITATION - REASONABLE TIME FOR DELIVERY OF GOODS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sued the defendant on two contracts of carriage of goods for recovery of compensation for non-delivery of the consignments. The plaintiff delivered 6 rolls of galvanized wire netting to the Eastern Railway on 28-6-64 and 13-6-66, respectively, to be delivered to the consignee at Mal Junction and Dalgaon. The defendant failed to deliver the goods, and the plaintiff lodged claims with the Chief Commercial Superintendent (Claims) of N.F. Railway. The defendant alleged that the goods were duly delivered and that the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff was the owner of the goods and had the right to sue the defendant for compensation. The court further held that the notices under Section 78b of the Railways Act were duly served and that the suit was maintainable. However, the court held that the plaintiff's claim in respect of the first consignment was barred by limitation, as the suit was instituted more than three years after the time when delivery of goods ought to have been given.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was the owner of the goods covered by the Railway Receipts. 2. Whether the defendant took due care and precaution for the carriage and transit of the consignments. 3. Whether the defendant delivered the goods to the consignee. 4. Whether the plaintiff served valid notices under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. Whether the suit was barred by limitation. 6. Whether the suit was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 78b of the Railways Act, 1890.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The plaintiff was a party to both the contracts of carriage and was entitled to sue the defendant for compensation for non-delivery of the goods. 2. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving safe delivery of the goods at the destination. 3. The plaintiff served valid notices under Section 78b of the Railways Act, as service on one of the two Railway administrations is sufficient. 4. The plaintiff's claim in respect of the first consignment was barred by limitation, as the suit was instituted more than three years after the time when delivery of goods ought to have been given.
Final Decision: Decree for Rs. 7,221.12 in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for the second consignment, with interest and costs. The plaintiff's claim in respect of the first consignment was dismissed as barred by limitation.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff sued the defendant on two contracts of carriage of goods for recovery of compensation for non-delivery of the consignments.
( 2 ) ON 28-6-64, the plaintiff a Dutta-pukur delivered to the Eastern Railway 6 rolls of galvanised wire netting 19,200 sq. ft. for carrying the same a Railway's risk to Mal junction through N. F. Rly. and the defendant issued R/r No. A 116018 dated 28-6-64 in respect to the same. The goods were to be delivered to the consignee. Sub-Divisional Officer (P. W. D.) Mal Construction Sub-division. The defendant failed to deliver the goods at the destination. A claim was duly lodged with the Chief Commercial Superintendent (Claim) N. F. Railway to the extent of Rs. 7207. 68 hut the defendant failed to pay the said sum or any part thereof. The defendant in the written statement alleged that these goods were duly delivered at Nasrakata on 22-7-64 against a clear receipt dated 25-7-64 and the plaintiff was duly informed about the same by letter dated 20-8-65.
( 3 ) ON 13-6-66, the plaintiff again delivered to the Eastern Railway Administration at Duttapukur another 6 rolls of galvanized wire netting containing 19,200 sq. ft. valued at Rs. 7221. 12 to be delivered at Dalgaon to the consignee Sub-divisional Officer (P. W. D.) Gairkata Sub-division under relevant R/r No. 049390 dated 13-6-66. The defendant failed to deliver the goods and the plaintiff duly lodged a claim for the said sum with the Chief Commercial Manager (Claim) N. F. Rly. but the defendant failed and neglected to pay the said amount or any portion thereof. In the written statement the defendant disputed the plaintiff's title over the said noods and also the quantity or value thereof. It was alleged that the suit was bad for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 78b of the Railways Act 1890 and the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. The following issues were raised for decision:1. Is the plaintiff owner of the goods covered by Railway Receipt No. A 116018 dated 28th June 1964 and Railway Receipt No. A 049390 dated 13th June 1966 as alleged in the plaint? 2. Did the defendant take all due and reasonable care and precaution for the carriage and the transit of consignments in question as a man of ordinary prudence would take under the similar circumstances for the same as alleged in paras 6 and 10 of the written statement? 3. Did the defendant deliver the goods covered by Railway receipts dated 28th June 1964 and 13th June 1966 to the consignee, Sub-Divisional Officer, P. W. D. , Mal Construction Sub-Division?
( 4 ) (A) Did the plaintiff serve notice under Section 80 of the Civil P. C. dated 7th Feb. 1968 to the General Manager. Eastern Railway Administration as well as the General Manager. N. F. Railway claiming Rs. 14,428. 80 as alleged in para 10 of the plaint? (b) Were the notices under Section 80 of Civil P. C. legal or valid?
( 5 ) IS the suit barred by limitation?
( 6 ) IS the suit not maintainable by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 78b of the Railways Act, 1890?
( 7 ) TO what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?4. The plaintiff examined two witnesses. The defendant did not adduce any oral evidence. The booking of 6 rolls of galvanized wire nesting on 28th June 1964 is proved by R/r No. A 116018 being Ext. 'a' in the suit which is a common document. None on behalf of the defendant came forward to tell the court how the defendant had dealt with these goods during transit. According to the plaintiff those goods were not delivered at the destination. It appears from Ext. 'e' dated 4-12-64 that the plaintiff had lodged a claim with the Chief Commercial Superintendent (Claims) of N. F. Railway to the extent of Rs. 7,207. 68 for non-delivery of the goods covered by R/r No. A 116018 and a copy thereof was sent to the Sub-divisional Officer, P. W. D. , Mal Construction, Sub-division the consignee thereof. The onus to prove safe delivery of the goods at the destina
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
