HULAS RAI JHAMMAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-firm's suit for recovery of Rs. 4,275.76, as damages for non-delivery of a parcel containing hand-loom woollen shawls booked by it at Chandni Chowk Delhi City Booking Agency of the Northern Railway on November 14, 1961, for transport to and delivery at Silao, was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge, I Class, Delhi, on the ground that the goods in question were excepted articles within the meaning of Section 75 of the Indian Railways Act; and as such the Railways were not liable for their non-delivery, as the value thereof had not been declared by the appellant-consignor at the time of booking. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, confirmed this finding, but held that it had been proved that the goods in dispute booked by the appellant were of the value of Rs. 4,275.76, the amount claimed in the suit The appeal was dismissed with costs.

(2.) The main question that has arisen for consideration, in this second appeal, therefore, is about the scope and true construction of Section 75 of the Indian Railways Act (DC of 1890) before it was amended by Section 13 of Act 39 of 1961, which came into force with effect from January 1, 1962, Section 75 before its amendment read as follows:

(3.) Mr. A. L. Sehgal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the courts below have erred in law in affording protection to the Railways, although there was no loss of the parcel. The railways could not shake off their liability for the non-delivery of the goods. His second contention was that the goods booked by the appellant were admittedly "handloom woollen shawls" and not "shawls".. According to him, "shawls" mentioned against item (m) in the Second Schedule are expensive shawls like the Kashmiri shawls. Handloom Wollen shawls, according to the learned counsel, are common articles and not covered by the said description.