UNION OF INDIA Vs. B PRAHLAD AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Long years ago the Indian Railways Act (Act IX of 1890) was enacted. It raised problems of complexity some of which have not been solved even to this day. This appeal raises one such question though the amount involved is small. The question it involves is; Who has the right to sue the Railway__the consignor or the consignee ? Judicial opinion is divided. Eminent judges are ranged on opposing sides.

(2.) The plaintiffs respondents who are commission agents brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,000 against the Union of India on A account of damages for deterioration of a consignment of loose raw and fresh plantains loaded in a wagon from Savda railway station for delivery to the plaintiffs at New Delhi railway station. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal the Additional District Judge decreed the suit with costs by his order dated November 30, 1968. Now there is an appeal to this court by the Union of India.

(3.) Mr. H. S. Dhir on behalf of the appellant has raised three arguments. Firstly, he maintained that the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue, he being a mere commission agent. Secondly, he argued that the plaintiff has not proved that there was misconduct or negligence on the part of the railways. Thirdly it was submitted that the plaintiff has not adduced proof with regard to compensation to which he claims to be entitled. I will take these three arguments one by one.