UNION OF INDIA Vs. P K PARAMESWARAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, the Union of India represented by the General Manager. Southern Railway, appeals against the decree for damages passed by the lower Court. The plaintiff had on 10-7-1975 booked 166 bags of Nepal rice at the Jogbani Railway Station of the North Frontier Railway for consignment to the Trivandrum Central Railway Station. The consignment is covered by invoice No. 6. He had on the same day booked other consignments of Nepal rice as per invoices Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 in the same railway station for consignment to Trivandrum. All the consignments except the one covered by invoice No. 6 were delivered at the Trivandrum Central Railway Station between the dates 29-8-1975 and 3-9-1975. There was considerable delay in the delivery of goods covered by invoice No. 6. The plaintiff issued a notice Ext. A2 dt. 13-10-1975 to the Chief Commercial Superintendent. Tiruchirapalli informing him that the consignment of rice covered by invoice No. 6 had not been delivered at the destination, that there is steep decline in the price of Nepal rice in the market and the loss that the plaintiff is likely to suffer will have to be borne by the Railway administration. There was no reply to Ext. A2. The plaintiff thereafter sent a telegram Ext. A4 to the Chief Commercial Superintendent on 20-10-1975 informing him that the railway administration will be responsible for the loss that the plaintiff may have to incur for non-delivery or delayed delivery of the goods covered by invoice No. 6. He issued a reminder Ext. A3 dt. 6-11-1975 claiming damages to cover the cost of the rice as per the purchase bill Ext. A8, interest at 18%, bank commission and the loss of profit estimated at Rs. 4150/-. There was also no reply to Ext. A3. Thereafter on 18-11-1975 the plaintiff got delivery of 163.bags of the rice covered by invoice No. 6. There was shortage of 3 bags when the consignment reached the destination. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of damages based on the fall in price of Nepal rice between 23-8-1975 and 18-11-1975. He has also claimed interest on the amount covered by Ext. A8 bill from 23-8-1975 to 18-11-1975. Since the consignments covered by invoices Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 were delivered at the destination during the period between 18-8-1975 and 3-9-1975, the plaintiff has taken 23-8-1975 as the reasonable time within which the goods should have been delivered. The price of Nepal rice in the Trivandrum market on that date was Rs. 378.57 per quintal, the price on 18-11-1975 was only Rs. 315/-; and the difference due to the fall in price is claimed as damages. The plaintiff has not made a separate claim in this suit for short delivery of three bags of rice.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the defendant Railway Administration raising the contention that there is no time specified for the delivery of goods booked at Jogbani Railway Station; the damages claimed fall within the scope of Cl. (d) of S. 78 of the Railways Act and it cannot be decreed for the reason of its remoteness and also for the reason that the loss of a particular market cannot be the basis to sustain a claim for damages. They also resist the plaintiff's claim for interest on the amount covered by Ext. A8 bill.

(3.) The Court below found that the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the deterioration in value of the goods in the market for the reason of the delay in delivery at its destination. It was however found that the plaintiff is not entitled to interest on the price of the goods paid in addition to the damages referred to above. The suit was accordingly decreed for recovery of Rs. 10,569.22. It is against this decree that the defendant has come up in appeal.