SHIV SARAN DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order of the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Simla whereby he dismissed a suit of the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 347.56 paise. The allegations of the petitioner, in the plaint, were as under:-

(2.) The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm known as Messrs Dewan Chand Atma Ram, 47, The Mall, Simla. The firm is dealing in wool and other goods. A consignment, containing one case of wool was sent to the petitioner by Bengal National Textile Mills Limited, Calcutta from Howrah vide R. R. No. Q52528, dated 2nd November, 1964. Due to the misconduct and negligence of the Railway Administration, the above ccnsignment reached Simla in a damaged condition. The petitioner had taken open delivery of the goods and it was found that 29 packets of Raj Hans knitting wool were short. The shortage certificate was obtained from the Chief Goods C!erk en 15th December, 1964. The certificate was sent to the Cheif Commercial Superintendent (Claims Branch), Kashmere Gate, Delhi along with the letter of the petitioner dated 22nd December, 1964 in which claim for shortage was made against the Railway Administration. On account of the misconduct and negligence of the Railway Administration, the petitioner suffered loss amounting to Rs. 347.56 paisa. The petitioner played that a decree for the recovery of Rs. 347.56 Paisa be passed against the respondent, Union of India.

(3.) The sait was contested on behalf of the respondent. The respondent did not admit that the petitioner was the sole proprietor of the firm known as Messrs Dewan Chand Atma Ram. The respondent did not deny that the consignment was booked at Howrah on the basis of R. R. No. 052528 dated 2nd November, 1964. The Respondent did not specifically deny the shortage in the consignment. However, if pleaded that the shortage, if any, was not due to any negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or its employees. The plea of the respondent was that the shortage, if any, was due to defective packing of the consignment at the time of booking. The respondent did not admit that the value of the goods, delivered short, was Rs. 347 56 Paisa. The respondent also challenged the validity of the notice under section 78B Indian Railways Act. The respondent pleaded that no notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, appeared to have been served.