LAKSHMI CHAND TEXTILES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant contending, inter alia, that the learned Additional District Judge in his judgment and decree dated 27th July, 1981 erred in law in holding that the plaintiff is only entitled to recover damages on the basis of the assessment made by the railway about the loss and also in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to interest under any law. According to the appellant/plaintiff the appellant is entitled to recover damages on a higher rate than what is assessed by the railway and also for payment of interest on the entire amount, which is awarded as damages.

(2.) The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.84,570/- along with interest both pendente lite and future. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff through their Bombay office tendered a consignment comprising 12 bales containing Indian Sewing Thread weighing 25.10 quintals to the Western Railway for onward despatch to New Delhi under Invoice dated 8.11.1974; that the plaintiff sought booking of the said goods under 'Quick Transit Service' system and was booked at the railway risk rate; that on 14.11.1974, the plaintiff sent their representatives to the New Delhi Railway Station for taking delivery of the said goods; that it was found that the entire suit consignment was fully burnt and was in badly damaged condition; that later on the defendants through their Goods Inspector asked the plaintiff to take delivery of the railway receipt and remove the sound goods leaving the burnt and damaged goods for assessment by them; that on 19.11.1974 the plaintiff took delivery of the railway receipt on payment of the railway charges; that the plaintiff requested the defendants to grant open delivery of the partly damaged three bales on assessment of the damages as the remaining 9 bales had been completely burnt and were valueless; that the consignment was inspected jointly by the Goods Inspector of the defendants with the representatives of the plaintiff. It was also contended that subsequently the suit consignment was jointly examined by the A.T.S (C), Northern Railway, the Goods Inspector along with the representatives of the plaintiff and in that assessment 75% loss was assessed in 8 bales and 30 % loss in 21 bundles and 5% loss in remaining 139 bundles; that the plaintiff requested the defendant by their letter dated 29.11.1974 not to detain the goods and to seek opinion of two independent and respectable persons in order to assess the damage and loss whereupon the plaintiff sought opinion from two independent agencies/surveyors about the loss caused to the goods and the said surveyors after examining the suit consignment and considering the independent opinion prepared a report dated 6.12.1974; that the defendant also sought opinion from two respectable agencies/surveyors, namely, M/s.Delhi Cloth Mills and Shree Handloom Bhandar, Delhi, who submitted their reports on 19.12.1974 and 20.12.1974 respectively giving different assessment than what was assessed by the railways. On the basis thereof, the plaintiff lodged a claim for a sum of Rs.58,584/- with interest and served a notice on the railways under Section 78-B of the Indian Railway Act. In the said suit the plaintiff claimed Rs.56,010/- as loss of damaged goods and Rs.28,560/- as interest at 17% p.a and the claim of the plaintiff is, therefore, valued at Rs.84,570/-.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit on various grounds as set out in the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, seven issues were framed. The learned Additional District Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties, proceeded to decide the suit by recording his findings and conclusions issuewise. So far Issues 1 to 5 were concerned, all the aforesaid issues were held in favour of the plaintiff, appellant herein, and the said issues are not under challenge in the present appeal. The most vital and important issue in the suit was Issue No.6, which was framed as under:- "6. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?