SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(Ker) 194

Judges : S.VELU PILLAI,T.S.KRISHRIAMOORTHY IYER
GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN RAILWAY - Appellant
Versus
LEKSHMI TEXTILES - Respondent
Case No : C. R. P. No. 91 of 1965
Decided On : 09/06/1966
Advocates Appeared :
K. P. Abraham; K. P. Pathrose; K. K. Poulose; For Petitioners V. Bhaskaran Nambiar; C. R. Natarajan; M. K. Ananthakrishnan; For Respondents

Adherence to the prescribed time period and the method of serving a claim under S.78B is crucial for claiming compensation for non-delivery of goods by railway.

Headnote:

S.78B - Indian Railways Act, 1830 - S.78B - S.140, S.141, S.142 - The court discussed the interpretation of S.78B in relation to the time period for claiming compensation for non-delivery of goods by railway. The court also considered the application of S.140, S.141, and S.142 in the context of serving a claim by post and the presumption of service. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed time period and the method of serving a claim under S.78B. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the word 'delivery' and the consistent application of the relevant sections.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent consigned goods for carriage by railway from Cannanore Railway Station for delivery to self at Bilimora Railway Station. The goods were not delivered, and the respondent sued for compensation. The petitioner contended that the claim was not preferred within the period prescribed by S.78B.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the claim was not preferred within the prescribed period and was not valid. The court allowed the revision petition and dismissed the suit, directing the parties to bear their costs throughout.

Issues: The main issue was whether the claim was in compliance with S.78B, and the interpretation of the time period for claiming compensation for non-delivery of goods by railway.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of S.78B, S.140, S.141, and S.142, and the determination that the claim was not preferred within the prescribed period.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, dismissed the suit, and directed the parties to bear their costs throughout.

Judgment :-

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been referred to a Bench for decision, as it raises a question of importance under S.78B of the Indian Rail ways Act, 1830. On the 15th March 1962, the respondent consigned goods for carriage by railway from Cannanore Railway Station for delivery to self at Bilimora Railway Station. They were not taken delivery of at the destination, and were, at the request of the respondent, rebooked at Bilimora on the 25th June 1962, for carriage by Railway and delivery at Cannanore. The consignment never reached Cannanore. The respondent preferred a claim under S.78B by forwarding it by registered post on the 26th December, 1962. The claim not being met, the respondent sued the revision petitioner, the Union of India, represented by the General Managers of the concerned railways, for compensation for non-delivery of goods. The petitioner contended, that no claim was preferred within the period prescribed by S.78B. The Munsiff overruled the contention and gave judgment to the respondent which is now sought to be revised.

2. The only question is whether the claim preferred was in compliance with S.78B. The relevant part of that section is as follows:

"A person shall not be entitled to a refund of an overcharge in respect of animals or goods carried by railway or to compensation for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods delivered to be so carried, unless his claim to the refund or compensation has been preferred in writing by him or on his behalf

(a) to the railway administration to which the animals or goods were delivered to be carried by railway, or

(b) to the railway administration on whose railway the destination station lies, or the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration occurred,

within six months from the date of the delivery of the animals or goods for carriage by railway." According to the revision petitioner, the claim had not been preferred within six months from the 25th June 1962, the date on which the goods were delivered at Bilimora Railway Station for carriage by railway to Cannanore. Applying S.9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the period of "six months from the date of delivery" has to be reckoned, excluding the 25th June 1962; so excluding, the period of sin months expired on the 25th December 1962. It may be assumed, that the 25th December being Christmas day was a holiday for the post office and it may further be assumed without deciding, that by virtue of S.10 of the General Clauses Act, the claim may be made on the next day, the 26th. That was the date on which the claim was forwarded by registered post. It is not necessary to pronounce on these points, for even so, we are of the view that the respondent has to fail.

3. To appreciate the contention of the revision petitioners S.78B has to be read with S.140 and 142 of the Act. S.141, though not applicable, has a bearing on the discussion. S.140 provides for three modes of service of a notice or other document required to be served on a railway administration, S.141 provides for such service on any person by a railway administration and S.142 raises a presumption as to the point of time when such notice or document shall be deemed to have been served by post. These three sections may be quoted:

S. 140. "Any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be served on a railway administration may be served, in the case of a railway administered by the Government on the Manager or the Chief Commercial Superintendent, and in the case of a railway administered by a railway company, on the Agent in India of the railway company

(a) by delivering the notice or other document to the Manager or the Chief Commercial Superintendent or Agent; or

(b) by leaving it at his office; or

(c) by forwarding it by post in a pre-paid letter addressed to the Manager or the Chief Commercial Superintendent or Agent at his office and registered under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898)."










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top