The measure of damages for delay in delivery of goods is the difference between the market price on the due date of delivery and the market price on the date of actual delivery.

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS are the appellants against the reversing judgment of the learned district Judge of Cuttack decreeing the plaintiffs' claim for Rs. 680/10/- in each of the suits. Second appeal No. 240/60 and Second Appeal No. 241/60 correspond to money suit No. 198/56 and Money Suit No. 197/56 respectively. Facts alleged in both the cases are almost identical. In each case the facts are that the plaintiff booked a consignment of 220 bags of sugar weighing 605 mds. . (each bag weighing 2 maunds 30 seers ). One consignment was under Invoice No. 2 R/r No. 124163 dated 5-6-55 and the other was under Invoice No. 3 R/r No. 124154 dated 5-6-55. These consignments were delivered on 18-7-55 though they were to reach Cuttack on 15-6-55. On enquiry the plaintiff came to know that the wagon containing the consignments was misdirected to Kantapukur Station on the eastern Railway and was detained there for more than a month. The plaintiff suffered loss of Rs. 1512/8/- due to this extraordinary delay in delivery as the market price of sugar came down by Rs. 2/8 per maund between the due date of delivery and the actual date of delivery.

( 2 ) IN both the suits defendants asserted that there was no loss due to fall. in the market fate and there was no special contract for the goods to reach before a special date.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif found that there was delay in transit due to the negligence and misconduct of the servants of the Railways and that the plff. was not entitled to any damages due to depreciation in value of the goods on account of the fall of price. He accordingly dismissed both the suits.

( 4 ) BEFORE the lower appellate Court, the finding that the railway administration was guilty of negligence and misconduct for the delay in the delivery of the goods was not challenged. The learned District Judge held that the defendants were liable to pay damages on account of the fall in price between the due date of delivery and the date of actual delivery; that there was delay of 26 days and the fall in the price was calculated at the rate of Rs. 1/2/- per maund and not at the rate of Rs. 2/8/- petmaund as claimed. He passed a partial decree for Rs. 680/10/- in each suit with proportionate costs throughout.

( 5 ) MR. B. K. Pal for the appellant did not challenge the finding that there was delay of 26 days in the delivery of goods and that the market price had fallen to the extent of Rs. 1/2/- per maund and that the delay was due to the negligence and misconduct of the servants of the railway administration. He advanced the only contention that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages represented by the fall in the market price. According to him the plaintiff is entitled to the value of the goods at which they were purchased and, in this case, the plaintiff is entitled to no compensation as the goods were in fact delivered to him.

( 6 ) AS a large number of authorities has been cited In support of the respective contentions, it is necessary to refer to the various provisions of law which have bearing on this contention. Section 72 (1) of the Indian Railways Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Act XXXIX of 1961, governs the present case find is as follows :

"the responsibility of a railway administration for the loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to the administration to be carried by railway shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be that of a bailee, under Sections 152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act". Section 161 of the Indian Contract Act runs as follows : "if, by default of the bailee, the goods are not returned, delivered, or tendered, at the proper time, he is responsible to the bailor for any loss, destruction, or depreciation of the goods from that time".

It is now well settled that in the absence of an express contract the obligation of a carrier is to carry by the usual routes and to deliver the goods within a reasonable time. Mr. Pal argues that in cont