UNION OF INDIA Vs. K MANSUKHRAM AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by the Union of India against the decree in the sum of Rs. 1583.38 passed against them by the Court of Small Causes Ahmedabad in the Civil Suit No. 6148 of 1973. The respondent herein is the plaintiff-firm that had filed the aforesaid suit for recovering the amount of Rs. 1600.00 by way of compensation on account of the non-delivery of the suit consignment notice charges and interest on the amount claimed. The plaintiff alleged that one bale of cloth was consigned from Ahmedabad to Buxar on 26-11-71 but the Railway administration did not at all deliver the same to the consignee. The suit was resisted by the railway on various technical pleas but the substantial plea that was raised vas that the defendants were protected under sec. 77B of the Indian Railways Act. The said plea was negatived and the decree came to be passed.

(2.) Mr. M. M. Shah the learned advocate for the Union of India owning and representing the Eastern and Western Railways urged that the plaintiff-consignor had not mentioned the value of the goods namely T. C. cloth which was mentioned in the Second Schedule appended to the Act and consequently the administration was not responsible for the loss destruction damage or deterioration of the goods. It is no longer in dispute before me that the consignor mentioned that the parcel contained T.C. cloth and that this item falls in the excepted category. It is also an admitted position that though the nature of the goods was written its value was Dot stated. It is also conceded that the consignment was not delivered. The only contention that was put forward was that sec. 77B of the Act exonerated the administration from liability because the value of the articles in the parcel exceeded Rs 500/- and the consignor delivering the parcel to the administration failed to cause its value to be declared in writing.

(3.) The bar contained in sec. 77B is absolute but it does not deal with non-delivery. Secs. 77 and 77A specifically mention loss destruction damage deterioration or non-delivery as the grounds occasioning the claim for damages. Curiously enough in sec. 77B non-delivery is not mentioned but only four items are mentioned namely loss destruction damage and deterioration. When the Legislature has consistently used above-mentioned five specific categories it must be deemed to have done with a purpose. It must not have thought of including loss arising out of non-delivery as included in the genus loss. Were it so the term non-delivery would not have been used in those earlier provisions. It is therefore evident that the term non-delivery according to the Legislature is something distinct from loss.