Honble GUPTA, J.–This appeal has been filed by the defendant, against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner, dt. 22.4.1987, decreeding the plaintiffs suit for Rs.19,229.49, along with interest from the date of suit, being 19.1.1982, till recovery, along with cost.

(2). Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, being a partnership firm, and the partners of the firm, filed a suit against the defendants, alleging inter alia, that the plaintiff No.1 is a registered partnership firm, while the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are its partners. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.3 supplied certain goods to the plaintiff, pursuant to the order of the plaintiff, and the said goods were sent to the plaintiff by being booked with the Railway Administration vide Railway Receipt No.14833 Invoice No.15 dt.24/16.1.1981, from Mithapur to Bikaner, freight amounting to Rs.2627/- was to be paid by the consignee. The goods were to be delivered by the Railway Administration being defendant No.1 and 2. The defendant No.3 sent the documents, and the railway receipt to the plaintiff through State Bank of India, whereupon the plaintiff paid Rs.30,462.16 paisa, being price of 200 bags of Soda Ash, and Rs.2099.13 paisa, being the price of packing material, and the railway receipt was got released. then, on production of the railway receipt with the railway, it was informed that the goods have not been received. When a longer time elapsed, the plaintiff wrote a letter to Divisional Commercial Superintendent (Claims), and lodged his claim, that to to no good, whereupon on 26.5.1981 the plaintiff got served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. read with Section 78 of the Indian Railway Act, 1890, hereinafter referred to as `the Act. It is thereafter only,that on 12.6.1981, the railway authorities of the Goods Shed bikaner delivered only 84 bags of Soda Ash to the plaintiff, thereupon the plaintiff vide letter dt.4.7.1981 laid a claim for the price of shortage of the goods amounting to Rs.20,674.82 paisa, mentioning therein that 16 bags had torn away, therefore, delivery thereof was not taken, though on being told by plaintiff, the defendant provided new bags, but then it lost its efficacy, and loss of quality of the goods was assessed at 30%. Thus, deducting the price of the goods in damaged condition, the amount of Rs.18,381.56 were said to be payable to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff, adding the cost of 30% of the goods having been damaged, and the cst o bags, laid the claim for Rs.19,229.49 paise. Then claiming interest of different amounts, for different period, a total claim of Rs.23,899.49 paise was lodged, which was denied, and thereupon the suit was filed, claiming the decree for Rs.23,899.49 paise along with interest at the rate of 20.5%.

(3). The defendant No.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement, denying the firm to be registered, and other plaintiffs to be the partners, for want of knowledge. The allegation of the defendant No.3 having received the price of the goods was denied. Then, sending the goods by defendant No.3, vide receipt No.148331 on 24/26.1.1981, from Mithapur to Bikaner, through railway, and the fare amounting to Rs.2627/- to be paid by the consignee, was not disputed. The price of the total goods being Rs.32561.29/- was denied. Then the allegation about the plaintiffs writing the letters to the Divisional commercial Supdt. was denied being vague. However, receipt of notice of the Advocate was admitted. It was admitted that 84 bags were delivered. However, the loss of efficacy, or quality of 16 bags, was denied, assessment of loss at the rate of 30% by supervisor was admitted, however, the claim was denied. In additional pleas, it was inter alia pleaded, that the plaintiff has claimed some of the amounts twice over, that the other Railway, on whose account the goods were damaged, had not been impleaded, in whose absence the suit cannot be maintained, the train, wherein the goods were loaded, m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document