UNION OF INDIA Vs. C.L. VAREED COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE the revision petition relates only to a sum of Rs.100 odd,claimed in a small cause suit,the point of law involved i.e .,of the liability of the Railway Administration for loss,to an endorsee or consignee of a Railway Receipt is one on which there is much diversity of thought and divergence of views expressed by the Judges of the superior courts.Where the law is lost in a maze of conflicting precedents and the subject matter is one which affects the common people in their ordinary life,the situation is ripe for the legislature to speak,re -state and simplify the rule of law that must apply "uncertainty and abstruseness being besetting sins of which all legislation in a democratic society must be purged.But,till the legislature has the time to do this,Courts have to endeavour to state and apply what they regard to be the correct law.I proceed to do so,conscious of the fact that case -law on the subject has reached the point of diminishing returns.

(2.) A consignment of Kesari,dhal despatched from Furwah to Trichur arrived in a damaged state and the plaintiff,the endorsee of the Railway Receipt from the consignor "who was 'also the consignee,as the consignee was shown as 'self "claimed Rs.116.36 as damages.The defendant,the Union of India,representing the Railway Administration,offered Rs.49.39 and,on refusal by the plaintiff to receive that sum,the latter was driven to a suit whereupon the Union of India,not only disputed the quantum of damages but also the competency of the plaintiff to maintain the action.There is now no quarrel about the quantum of compensation and so the only issue surviving for decision is the right of the endorsee who,in this case,is admittedly only a commission agent,to institute the suit for damages.

(3.) IT is curious that the Union of India has contested the competency of the plaintiff to institute the suit,thus taking a stand contrary to what is implied in the offer to pay Rs.49.39 in full quittance of the plaintiff's claim.Nor has the owner claimed damages till now from it.Of course,this is a feature found in other reported cases,possibly because the Railway's sense of consistency some­times gets subordinated to the call of expediency.Be that as it may,it is still open to the defendant to challenge the right of the plaintiff to sue.A fairly exhaustive treatment of the legal question we are concerned with is found in J.K.M.Yacob Rowther Sons,Mettupalayam v. Union of India A.I.R.1965 Madras 162, Shah Mulji Deoji v .Union of India A.I.R.1957 Nagpur 31, Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta v .General Traaing Company,Ltd. A.I.R.1964 Calcutta 290, Ibrahim Isaphai v. Union of India A.I.R.1966 Gujarat 6, Thakur Prasad v .Union of India A.I.R.1960 Patna 419, Dominion of India v .Messrs.Gay a Perishad Gopi Narain A.I.R.1956 Allahabad 538, Union of India v .Therali lsaji Bohari I.L.R.1956 Bombay 600, Morvi Mercantile Bank Ltd .v. Union of India A.I.R.1965 S.C.1954,and The Union of India v. The West Punjab Factories Ltd A.I.R.1966 S.C.395,not to speak of the numerous earlier cases.Not infrequently the same High Court has struck contradictory notes and different High Courts have expressed opinions running counter to one another.Of course,the Supreme Court has spoken on the subject,although not covering all the various facets,in relation to a claim put forward by a consignee or endorsee of a Railway Receipt.Nevertheless,the guiding principles can be gleaned from the Supreme Court judgments;and nuances of thought and semantic refinements expressed in other decisions can no longer prevail to the extent they conflict with them,even though in one such case it is in a minority judgment.I have only to rest my judgment on these two Supreme Court rulings although I shall advert,also to some of the decisions of the High Courts.But before all that,the basic principles involved in the law on the subject need to be stated briefly.The responsibility of the Railway Administration for damage to goods,delivered to it to be carried to a specified destination,has been statutorily settled by section 72 of the Indian Railways Act as that of a bailee under sections 151,152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act.A bailee is,of course,responsible to the bailor for loss or damage and has 'the obligation to deliver the goods to the bailee according to the bailor's directions.( See section 160 of the Contract Act.),The bailee in all these cases is the Railway Administration;but who is the bailor vis -a -vis this bailee? Section 39 of the Sale of Goods Act lays down a rule of presumption,relevant in this context: