TULSIDAS VITHALDAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND Appeals Nos. 476, 477 and 478 of 1960 are filed against the Union of India owning the Western Railway and the North Eastern Railway. They arise out of suits filed against the Union of India as representing the said railways for damages in respect of consignments of potatoes despatched from Farukhabad and which were received in damaged condition at Bhavanagar. Second Appeal No. 1188 of 1960 is filed against the Union of India as representing the Western Railway as regards a consignment sent to Palitana from Farukhabad. The facts in all these appeals are very similar and the points of law involved are the same. Therefore, with the consent of the learned advocates of both sides, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. It will be expedient, however to discuss separately some questions of facts and the effect of the position of law in Second Appeal No. 1183 of 1960.

(2.) CIVIL Suit Nos. 220 of 1956, 219 of 1956 and 221 of 1956 were filed by Tulsidas Vithaldas trading in the firm name of Mohanlal Vithaldas against the Union of India in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Bhavanagar, for recovering damages regarding the respective consignments of potatoes despatched from Farukhabad station on the North Eastern Railway to Bhavnagar on the Western Railway. Suit No. 87 of 1956 was filed by the same plaintiff against the Union of India in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Palitana, for recovery of damages in respect of the consignment of potatoes booked from Farukhabad to Palitana station on the Western Railway. In all these suits open delivery was taken of goods which were found to have been damaged during transit and an assessment of damage was made by the railway authorities in the presence of panchas. It was alleged in all the suits that inordinately long time was taken by the railways in the transit of these consignments from the Station of despatch to the station of their destination, i.e. Bhavnagar and Palitana. It was further alleged that this unreasonable delay was caused by the negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or its servants which damaged the consignments of potatoes and, as such, the railways were liable to make good the loss suffered by the plaintiff , by way of damages. The requisite notices required under the Indian Railways Act and the Civil Procedure Code were given, but as nothing was paid, the suits were filed to recover the respective amounts from the defendants. The defendants in their written statements in the respective suits denied that there was any delay or that the time taken in transit of these consignments was unreasonably long. They averred that the time taken was normal time taken in the transit of consignments of such goods from Farukhabad to the two stations. They denied that there was any negligence or misconduct either on the part of the Railway Administration or their servants. The defendants had raised various other technical points but they need not be stated here as none of them has been pressed in these appeals before me.

(3.) THE Union of India filed appeals against the decrees passed by the Bhavnagar Civil Court in the District Court at Bhavnagar and similarly in the Palitana suit the plaintiff took the matter in appeal to Bhavnagar. The three appeals from the judgments of the Bhavnagar Civil Court appear to have been heard together and were decided by different judgments on 29th August 1958 and the District Judge allowed all the appeals and dismissed all the three suits. The learned District Judge was of the view that in neither of the three appeals, the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing an unreasonable delay or negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway administration or their servants. He found that the time taken was proved to be such as can be said to be 'normal time' for transit of such goods from Farukhabad to Bhavnagar. In the appeal from Palitana Court also the learned District Judge came to the same conclusion, confirmed the lower Court's decision and dismissed the appeal. In all these four matters, the plaintiff Tulsidas Vithaldas has come in appeal to this Court.