STATE OF MYSORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been brought on behalf of the State of Karnataka challenging the judgment and decree dated June 29, 1974 made by the Civil Judge, Raichur in O. S. 25/1 of 1966.

(2.) The suit was instituted; by the Slate Government for recovery of Rs. 30,983-75 from the Southern Railway as compensation for the damage caused to a transformer consigned for carriage from Madras Harbour to the railway station at Raichur.

(3.) There are, however some undisputed facts which we may notice here itself. The transformer in question when it reached Raichur railway station was found damaged. Oil was found leaking due to radiator fins damage The plank of the packing was found broken at the vertical line. The bottom horizontal plank was also bent. The oil from the transformer was found leaking very heavily from the pipe joint. On the right hand corner of the rear of the transformer the whole packing was found displaced. On the left hand bottom side the two iron slabs supporting below the wooden packing were also bent. Having noticed these external damage, the Executive Engineer of the Electrical Division at Raichur, gave a letter Ext. D-1 dated Dec. 19, 1960 to the Station Master Raichur, requesting for open delivery of ther transformer. He sent copies of his letter to the superior officers of his own department and also to the Chief Commercial Superintendent of Southern Railway, Madras, with a specific note that the claim for damages may be accepted and the actual damages would be intimated after taking open delivery. On February 7, 1981 there was a, joint inspection of the Transformer by the representatives of the electrical department of the railway, the Indian Insurance Company and; the representative of the plaintiff. They prepared a report Ext. P-1 noting the, undisputed external damages to which we have earlier referred. The report states that the assessment of total damages could be ascertained after it was opened and there were no facilities for such opening at Raichur. It should be transported to Munirabad for that purpose. The report also states that the oil leaked out was collected and delivered to the Railway authorities for disposal as it was found unsuitable by the Electrical Department. The report further states that the cause for damage must have been due to heavy impact of the, left hand bottom rear of the transformer casing. The transformer, however, could not be taken immediately to Munirabad. In the meantime the Executive Engineer of the Electrical Department issued a notice Ext. P-4 dated June 21, 1961 calling upon the Chief Commercial Superintendent of Southern Railway at Madras to pay provisional damages of Rs. 1,60,000 being the cost of the entire transformer including the oil which was leaked out. It was also stated in the notice that that claim was subject to revision after making final inspection of the transformer and effecting necessary repairs, if any. The Commercial Superintendent in his reply dated August 30, 1961 repudiated his liability to pay the damages with a contention that the transformer was inherently defective and it was leaking even when it was consigned for carriage at Madras harbour station. In February, 1964 the transformer was taken to Munirabad workshop and there it was opened and repaired. Th, repairs effected were recorded in the works register called 'C' register. The item wise expenditure incurred thereon was also recorded in the 'C' register which has been produced and marked as Ext. P-8. There is no dispute in regard to the costs of those repairs. The plaintiff issued a statutory notice dated July 29, 1965 under S. 80 CPC calling upon the Railway to pay Rs. 33,872-75 for .the damage caused to the transformer. It was followed by the institution of 'the suit in which the, claim, however, was confined to Rs. 30,983-75p.