P K MATHEW Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit from which this appeal arises was instituted by the Plaintiff for damages for short delivery. The Plaintiffs case was that he consigned 200 bags of sugar to the railway station at Lohat Siding on the Oudh Tirhut Railway for carriage to Trivandrum. The consignment was on 5-5-1950. The 1st defendant viz, the Southern Railway carried the goods after taking them over from the O. T. Railway and delivered them on 18-6-1950 at the Central Station, Trivandrum. On delivery it was found that, there was a shortage of 25 bags and 84 lbs. of sugar. On 6-9-1950 a claim was preferred by the Plaintiff under S.77 of the Railways Act for damages to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- on account of the short delivery. As that claim was rejected by the 1st defendant the plaintiff after issuing the notice under S.80 of the Civil Procedure Code has instituted the suit claiming damages for short delivery.

(2.) Originally the General Manager of the Southern Railway Madras, representing the Union of India, alone was a party. Subsequently the General Manager of the O. T. Railway was also impleaded as the 2nd deft. The 1st deft, contended that the Southern Railway was only an agency to carry the goods and as such had carried the goods to the place of destination from the point of its taking over the goods in the same condition in which they were handed over to it. The 1st deft, therefore denied its liability for any loss because it maintained that no loss occurred during the transit of the goods through its line. The 2nd deft, also denied its liability and pleaded that the loss must have occurred on account of theft in running train.

(3.) It is admitted that no notice has been issued under S.80 of the Civil Procedure Code to the 2nd defendant, and therefore the suit was not maintainable as against that defendant; so far as the 1st deft, is concerned as there was no proof that the loss occurred during the transit of the goods in its line, the Court below dismissed the suit as against that railway administration.