HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred for the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court by Kader J. - "Whether S.80 of the Railways Act as amended excludes the operation of S.20 of the Civil P.C. and Cl.12 of the Letters Patent?" The question has arisen for consideration in the following circumstances. The first plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, having the registered office at Bangalore and carrying on business at Kalamassery, Ernakulam. The second plaintiff is a registered society carrying on business at P.W. Satsung Bihar. The third plaintiff is the insurer who has settled the claims of the second plaintiff and got subrogated to the rights, having its registered office at Madras. A consignment of one case containing HMT printing machine Letter Press Atesa/RTE 1052, was entrusted by the first plaintiff to the first defendant Southern Railway administration at Cochin Harbour terminus for being delivered to the second plaintiff at Baidyanath Dam within the jurisdiction of the second defendant, the Eastern railway. At the time of unloading at the place of destination the machine fell down while being lifted and sustained heavy damage. The plaintiffs attribute the damage to the negligence on the part of the railway Administration and have accordingly filed the suit on the original side of this Court for the recovery of Rs. 2,47,586-67 as damages for the loss sustained. The first defendant, Southern Railway raised a preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under S.80 of the Rlys. Act as no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) The contention of Mr. P. S. Srisailam the learned counsel for the defendants-railways is that under S, 80 of the Rlys. Act, as amended by the Amending Act No. 39 of 1961, a suit for compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods can be filed only in three places, viz. (1) in a court having jurisdiction over the place at which the goods were delivered for carriage; (2) in a court having jurisdiction over the place in which the destination station lies; and (3) in a court having jurisdiction over the place at which the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration occurred. According to the learned counsel, S.80 of the Rlys. Act as amended by the Amending Act No. 39 of 1961 has the effect of excluding the operation of S.20 C.P.C. and Cl.12 of the Letters Patent. The learned counsel referred to S.4 of the C.P.C. and argued that the Rlys. Act being a special enactment should prevail over the provisions of the Civil P.C. and the Letters Patent. If the matter is viewed in this light, the learned counsel submitted, that it would be seen that this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on its original side.

(3.) On the other hand, the submission of Mr. Sampath Kumar, is that the amendment of S.80 of the Rlys. Act by the amending Act No. 39 of 1961 does not in any way exclude the operation of S.20 C.P.C. and Cl.12 Letters Patent. According to the learned counsel, the amendment has not in any way materially altered S.80 of the Railways Act as it originally stood. It has only added another place for the institution of the suit, viz, the court within whose jurisdiction the destination station lies.