Back
Madras High Court
ISMAIL
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Khandelwal Bros.(P) Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 03/12/1974
RAILWAYS ACT - SECTION 77-C - LOSS OF GOODS - LIABILITY OF RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 77-C - APPLICABILITY TO LOSS OF GOODS - REQUIREMENTS FOR EXONERATION OF LIABILITY - PACKING CONDITIONS - NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE PACKING - INTEREST ON CLAIM - AWARD OF INTEREST FROM DATE OF SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, as consignees, instituted a suit against the defendants, a railway administration, for recovery of the value of goods lost during transportation. The defendants denied liability, claiming exoneration under Section 77-C of the Indian Railways Act due to defective packing by the consignors.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 77-C of the Indian Railways Act, which provides for exoneration of railway administration's liability in certain circumstances, does not apply to loss or non-delivery of goods. The court found that the loss in question constituted either loss of a portion of the goods carried or non-delivery of a portion of the goods entrusted for carriage to the railway administration. The court further held that even if Section 77-C were applicable, the requirements for exoneration of liability under Section 77-C(2) were not satisfied in the present case, as the defective packing was brought to the notice of the railway administration in the forwarding notes.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 77-C of the Indian Railways Act applies to loss or non-delivery of goods. 2. Whether the requirements for exoneration of liability under Section 77-C(2) were satisfied in the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 77-C of the Indian Railways Act is confined to four contingencies, namely, damage, deterioration, leakage, or wastage of the goods carried. It does not refer to loss, destruction, or non-delivery of the goods. 2. The requirements for exoneration of liability under Section 77-C(2) are: (a) that the goods were, at the time of delivery to the railway administration, in a defective condition or alternatively the goods were at that time either defectively packed or packed in a manner not in accordance with the general or special order, if any, issued under sub-section (4); (b) that as a consequence of the defective condition or defective or improper packing the goods were liable to damage, deterioration, leakage, or wastage; (c) that such defective condition or defective or improper packing was not brought to the notice of the railway administration or of any of its servants at the time of delivery of the goods to the railway administration for carriage by railway.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court, subject to a minor modification regarding the award of interest. The respondents were entitled to interest on the claim amount from the date of the suit, 8-9-1967, instead of 1-11-1966 as directed by the trial court.
The defendants in O. S. 3931 of 1967 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants herein. The first plaintiff-first respondent was a consignee of two consignments - one consisting of 175 pieces of M. S. black pipes 4" diameter and 88 pieces of G. I. pipes 3" diameter and the other consisting of 143 pieces of G. I. pipes 4" diameter and 148 pieces of G. I. pipes 2 " diameter, which were entrusted to the appellants herein for transportation from Sealdah to Royapuram under two railway receipts Nos. 822997 and 322998 dated 24-4-1964, one of which has been marked as Ex. B.2 when the goods were taken delivery of at Royapuram, there was a shortage of 26 Nos. of black pipes in the first consignment and 12 pieces of G. I. pipes 4" diameter in the second consignment, as evidenced by the shortage certificate, Ex. A.5 dated 10-7-1964. It is with reference to this shortage after issuing notice, the respondents instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3329-18 in respect of the first consignment and a sum of Rs. 1855-39 in respect of the second consignment. They also claimed interest at 6 per cent per annum from 10-7-1964.
2. The appellants herein repudiated the claim of the respondents. They contended that they were not liable for the suit claim as there was no negligence or misconduct; that the consignors had not conformed to the packing conditions: that they had not bestowed the required care in despatching the goods; and that therefore under Section 77-C of the Indian Railways Act, the appellants were absolved of their liability. They also contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any interest and that the suit itself was barred by limitation.
3. On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court-
1. Whether the plaintiffs have got the right, title and interest in the suit consignment;
2. Whether there was any negligence or misconduct on the part of the defendants:
3. Whether the plaintiffs conformed with the packing condition prescribed under the Railways Act:
4. Whether the defendants are exonerated from liability under Section 77-C of the Indian Railways Act due to the defective packing;
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim any interest over the claim;
6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation;
7. To what reliefs are the parties entitled.
The learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, held on issue 1 that Exs. A.1 and A-2 and B-1 and B-2 clearly proved that the first plaintiff was the consignee and that therefore the suit instituted by the plaintiffs was maintainable; on issues 2 and 4, he found that the appellants were not absolved of their responsibility and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the suit claim; on issue 3, he held that in the absence of evidence he had to hold that the consignments had conformed to the 'packing conditions; on issue 5, he held that the respondents-plaintiffs were entitled to interest from 1-11 -1966, the date on which the notice issued by the respondents was acknowledged; and on issue 6, his finding was that the suit was not barred by limitation. In view of these findings, he decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 5184-57 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from 1-11-1966. It is against this judgment and decree that the present appeal has been preferred by the defendants in the suit.
4. Mr. Srisailam, learned counsel for the appellants, advanced two arguments before me. One was that Section 77-C of the Indian Railways Act absolved the appellants of all liability in respect of the suit claim and the other was that the respondents were not entitled, to any interest from a date prior to the institution of the suit. On the plea of limitation, the learned counsel for the appellants conceded that the limitation question was raised by the appellants on an erroneous assumption that the suit was instituted only on 23-9-1967, and that since it was ascertained that the suit was instituted on 6-9-1967 its
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
