UNION OF INDIA Vs. GANGA RAM JAIBHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against decree for Rs. 798-80 passed by the First Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Delhi in Suit No. 712/74. The plaintiff had contended in the suit that the Railway administration was not entitled in law to recover the decretal amount from the plaintiff towards wharfage charges.

(2.) The dispute between "the parties raises an important question of law regarding the liability to pay wharfage u/s 46-C(h) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, which reads "Wharfage means, the charges levied on goods for not removing them from the railway premises after the expiry of the free time allowed for such removal."

(3.) The Act further provides, thatif a person fails to pay on demand made by or on behalf of railway administration, any rate or other charges due from him in respect of any animal or goods, the railway administration may detain the whole or any of the animals or goods (Section 55). The contention of the Union of India was that after the arrival of the goods at Delhi, they were not removed within the free time allowed and administration was, therefore, justified in recovering the decretal amount by enforcing lien. The plaintiff, on the other hand contended that the goods in question were subjected to the order of attachment before judgment passed by the Civil Judge, Neemuch. The plaintiff further claimed that the railway administration refused to hand over the goods to the plaintiff due to the said attachment order which, in fact, prevented plaintiff from removing the goods from the goods-shed within the time allowed. The learned Small Cause Court Judge, on interpretation of S. 46-C(h), came to the conclusion that the liability to pay wharfage could arise only if the consignee was at fault. He found that the plaintiff was not at fault as the goods were under the attachment order.