JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT OIL MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, by certificate, the question for consideration is whether the respondents were liable to the appellant in damages for non-delivery of mustard oil consigned by the appellant to the employees of Eastern Railway at Kanpur Central Station on 29-8-1949 for carriage and delivery to the appellant at Seheb Bazar Jagannath Ghat Railway station, Calcutta.

(2.) There is no dispute that the consignment was duly accepted by the railway employees and that it was carried to the particular station at Calcutta on 4-9-1949. However, on 6-9-1949, the appellant wrote to the railway authorities at Kanpur to redirect the consignment to Kanpur and to deliver the same to the appellant there. But the appellant was asked by the railway authorities at Kanpur to take delivery of the consignment at Calcutta. Delivery could not be made at Calcutta on 6-9-1949, as the oil was seized by the Food Inspector of Calcutta in pursuance of an order of the Health Officer of the Calcutta Corporation under Section 419 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. On 17-9-1949, two samples of mustard oil contained in the tank were taken under the order of the Municipal Magistrate before whom the case was placed for orders and they were sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported on 20-9-1949 that the samples were adulterated. It then became necessary for the Magistrate to decide whether he should pass orders for destruction of the oil as prayed for by the Corporation. After hearing the appellant, he passed an order acquitting the appellant and rejecting the prayer for destruction of the oil. The Corporation filed a revision against the order rejecting its prayer for destruction of the oil before the High Court of Calcutta. The Court directed the destruction of the oil on the basis of the report of Public Analyst.

(3.) The appellant thereafter issued a notice under Section 80 of the Civil P. C. to the respondent claiming damages on the basis that the railway authorities were bound to deliver the oil at Kanpur as subsequently directed by the appellant and since the railway authorities did not deliver the oil at Kanpur or at Calcutta, they were guilty of negligence. Thereafter the appellant filed the suit from which this appeal arises.