MUNSHI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab High court (Circuit bench) at New Delhi, in Letters Patent appeal, whereby the High court dismissed the appeal of Munshi Ram, appellant. This appeal arises from a suit filed by Munshi Ram against theunion of India and three others, claiming that a decree for Rs. 4,178.58 be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. It was alleged in the plaint that A. Shankar Lal and Co. , Bombay booked a consignment of 180 bags of potatoes of "first class quality" (Emphazis supplied) from Bombay to New Delhi by a Railway Receipt, dated 9/11/1959, consigned to self. The Railway Receipt was endorsed in favour of the plaintiff. The consignment instead of reaching Delhi on or about 15/11/1959, reached on 2/12/1959. The contents were to a very great extent damaged, foul smell was coming out of it and the potatoes, according to the plaintiff, became unfit for human 'consumption. The plaintiff alleged that he sorted out sound or slightly damaged potatoes, refilled them in 92 bags and took the delivery of these 92 bags only, leaving the rest according to the instructions given in writing by the Goods Supervisor. Then it was claimed that if the consignment had reached in sound condition and in time it would have fetched Rs. 7,873.62 np. but as the plaintiff could get only rs. 3,694.62 np. out of. the sale of the 92 bags, he had suffered a loss of rs. 4,178.58 np. simply due to the negligence and misconduct of the railway employees.

(2.) In the defendant's written statement it Was stated that the goods had been booked at the owner's risk rate and the railway is protected unless gross negligence or misconduct is proved on behalf of the employees of the railway. It was admitted that the goods were slightly damaged, but denied that the potatoes were unfit for human consumption. It was asserted that the plaintiff took all the 180 bags on a gate pass issued by the railway and no bag was left behind. The plaintiff took the goods away without any assessment being made.

(3.) The Trial court framed a number of issues, but we may only mention the following-