BHARATH BEEDI WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by a plaintiff who has failed in both the Courts below.

(2.) Most of the material facts are not in dispute. Eight consignments of Beedi leaves were sent to Mangalore Railway Station. The plaintiff which is a partnership firm was the consignee. At the despatching stations the goods were not weighed, but the Railways accepted the consignors' declarations of weight and collected the freight on that basis subject to the right of the Railways to weigh the goods either at the destination or at any intermediate junction and to collect under charges (the difference between the correct freight and the freight actually paid or entered in the Railway Receipts), if any. All these eight consignments arrived at Mangalore Railway Station-seven consignments on 29-10-1964 and the other consignment a day earlier i.e., 28-10-1964. These consignments were weighed by the Railways and the plaintiff was called upon to pay a total sum of Rs. 1879 as undercharges. The plaintiff asked for the goods being weighed or re-weighed by,the Railways in its presence. Its request in that behalf made to the Chief Goods Clerk, was referred to the Divisional Commercial Superintendent at Olavakkot (hereinafter referred to as the DCS.) . The Railways received from the plaintiff a sum of Rs.240 towards the charges for such re-weighment. By his letter dt. 1-11-1964 (Ext.A1) the Chief Goods Clerk intimated the plaintiff that its request for re-weighment had been rejected by the DCS. The letter also intimated the plaintiff that if it failed to take delivery of the goods, it would be liable to pay demurrage and wharfage. But the plaintiff neither unloaded the wagons nor removed the goods from the Railway premises. On the other hand, it sent a telegram to the DCS. requesting for reweighment and delivery immediately failing which legal proceedings would be taken to recover the excess freight and other charges demanded by the Railways. On 12-1.1-1964 it sent a letter through its Advocate to the Chief Commercial Superintendent at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the CCS). making a similar request. On 2-12-1964 the CCS. sent a reply (Ext.A5) to the plaintiff's Advocate declining to grant the request for such re-weighment.

(3.) In the meanwhile,, the Railways themselves got the wagons unloaded between 4-11-1964 and 11-11-1964. On 19-11-1964 the DCS. sent a letter (Ext.A5) to the plaintiff's Advocate stating that there was no valid ground for such re-weighment, that if the goods were kept in the goods- shed and not removed by the plaintiff, it would be liable to pay wharfage, On 29-11-1964 the Chief Goods Clerk addressed a letter (Ext.A4) to the plaintiff intimating that its request for waiving demurrage and wharfage on these consignments was not agreed to by the DCS. and asking the plaintiff to take delivery of the goods immediately on payment 01 all the charges due to the Railway. In tnat letter there is a note to the effect that it was received by the plaintiff on 1-12-1964. On 1-12-1964 the plaintiff addressed a letter to the Chief Goods Clerk stating that it was taking delivery of consignments under protest after paying the excess freight, demurrage and wharfage and it took delivery of six consignments on that day and the remaining consignments on the next day i.e., 2-12-1964.