Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Sen and Bhutt, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Appellant
Versus
ASHARFI DEVI - Respondents
First Appeal 156 Of 1950
Decided On : 03/01/1957
INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT - SECTION 77 - NOTICE OF CLAIM - VALIDITY - SERVICE ON PROPER AUTHORITY - INTERPRETATION - MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff instituted two suits against the Dominion of India for recovery of damages for loss of tobacco consignments due to rain while lying on the open platform of railway stations. The plaintiff had booked the consignments on Risk Notes A and B, and the lower court found that the delay in taking delivery of the goods was due to misinformation given by the railway clerks. The plaintiff sent notices of claim to the General Traffic Manager, G.I.P. Railway, Bombay, within six months from the date of delivery of the goods for carriage, but the railway administration rejected the claims on the grounds of delay in posting the notice and invalidity of the notices as they were not addressed to the proper authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay in posting the notice was condoned under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and that the notices were validly served on the General Traffic Manager, who was authorized to receive notices of claims under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. The court also held that the measure of damages was the cost price of the goods, as the plaintiff had not claimed any profits on the goods.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice of claim was sent within the prescribed period of six months under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act? 2. Whether the notice of claim was served on the proper authority as required by Section 140(c) read with Section 3(6) of the Indian Railways Act? 3. What is the measure of damages for the loss of goods?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act requires that the notice of claim should be preferred within six months from the date of delivery of the goods for carriage by railway. The court held that the delay in posting the notice was condoned under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as the two previous days were public holidays when the post offices were closed. 2. Section 140(c) of the Indian Railways Act provides that any notice required by the Act to be served on the Railway Administration may be served on the Manager. The court held that the notices addressed to the General Traffic Manager were valid, as he was authorized to receive notices of claims under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. This authority was inferred from the course of conduct of the Railway Administration, which included a provision in the railway receipt stating that claims should be sent to the General Traffic Manager, and the fact that the notices were received and dealt with by the Superintendent of Claims in his office. 3. The court held that the measure of damages for the loss of goods was the cost price of the goods, as the plaintiff had not claimed any profits on the goods.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 2 ) CIVIL Suit No. 5-B of 1948 relates to the damage done to the consignment of tobacco from Naoli Railway Station on the Bombay Baroda and Central India railway. The consignment was booked on 24-7-1947 to Sagar on the Great Indian peninsula Railway and reached the destination on 14-8-1947. The connected suit (No. 8-B of 1948} was instituted for recovery of damages in respect of the consignment of tobacco, booked at Rajuwadia on the same Railway on 4-8-1947, which reached Sagar on 21-8-1947. It was not disputed before us that the goods were damaged by rain sometime after their arrival while they were lying on the open platform. The lower Court estimated the damage at the rate at which the goods were purchased. At this rate, it granted a decree for Rs. 8,507-3-0 in Civil suit No. 5-B of 1948 and for Rs. 4,793-15-0 in Civil Suit No. 8-B of 1948, inclusive of the proportionate amount of freight paid by the plaintiff. There is no contest on this point except as regards the rate at which the loss was valued. It was contended that the lower Court ought to have estimated the loss at the selling price of tobacco at Sagar on or about the dates of arrival of the consignments, and as there is no proof of this price, the decree could not stand. ( 3 ) THE Naoli consignment has been found by the lower Court to have been booked on Risk Notes A and B, Exs. D-9 and D-9-A. This finding is based on the plaintiff's admission of the documents in reply to the defendant's notice and is apparently well founded. As regards the Rajuwadia consignment, wo agree with the lower court that there is no evidence on the defendant's allegation that it was booked on risk Note A. The finding on this point, although challenged is, therefore, confirmed. The result is that as regards the Naoli consignment, the plaintiff had to prove misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration's servants, and as for the Rajuwadia consignment, that the Railway Administration failed to take the amount of care enjoined on a bailee under Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: Dwarkanath v. R. S. N. Co. , Ltd. , AIR 1917 PC 173 (A ).
( 4 ) WE are inclined to accept the lower Court's finding that the delay in the taking of the delivery of the goods by the plaintiff was due to the wrong information that the clerks on duty gave to his brokers. The Railway Receipts of Naoli and rajuwadia consignments, Exs. D-l and D-5, were presented at the Railway Station, as shown by the endorsements thereon, on 9-8-1947 and 21-8-1947, and on 11 8-1947 and 11-9-1947, respectively. These were non-delivery entries which were made when the receipts were presented for the consignments. This is admitted by Beniprasad (D. W. 2), unloading foreman, who had made the entries on the Naoli Railway receipt, Ex, D-l. The entries on the railway receipt of rajuwadia consignment were apparently misleading as the goods had arrived on 21-8-1947. However, even if these entries are ignored due to want of proof, it was admitted by "beniprasad (D. W. 2) that the plaintiff's brokers came daily with the railway receipts to the Railway Station for taking delivery of the goods. These brokers were Uttamchand (P. W. 1), exa
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
