LAWS(SC)-1990-12-22

LAKSHMI BANGLE STORES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On December 06, 1990
LAKSHMI BANGLE STORES Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Messrs Lakshmi Bangle Stores instituted a suit for damages against the Eastern Railway and the South-Eastern Railway through Union of India. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal a division bench of the High court set aside the findings of the trial court on merits but dismissed the appeal on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. This appeal via special leave petition is against the judgment of the High court.

(2.) We may state the necessary facts. The appellant booked a rail wagon for consignment of bangles from Ferozabad to Srikakulam on 3/06/1964. He declared the value of the consigned goods as Rs. 25,000. 00. The wagon loaded with the glass bangles met with an accident at Ganguti Railway Station on 22/06/1964 and was damaged. Thereafter, the bangle cases were transferred to another wagon by the railway authorities. The consignment reached Srikakulam on 25/07/1964 and an open assessment delivery of the goods was made to the appellant on Sep 4/09/1964. The appellant found that more than half of the bangles were damaged. According to the appellant the actual value of the bangles was Rs. 56,837. 04 and the value of the undamaged stock delivered back to him was Rs. 27,752.87. The appellant thus claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 32,869.87. The respondents contested the claim of the appellant. It was pleaded that the appellant having declared the value of the entire consignment as Rs. 25,000. 00 he could not claim damages by enhancing the value to Rs. 56,837. 04. It was also stated that in view of the provisions of S. 77-B of the Indian Railways Act the appellant was not entitled to the damages. It was further pleaded that the suit having been filed beyond the period of 3 years from the date of accident, when loss to the property occurred, the same was barred by limitation under Article 10 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) The trial court in its judgment dated 7/02/1970 came to the following conclusions: