UNION OF INDIA Vs. KHANDELWAL BROS. (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S. 3931 of 1967 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants herein. The first plaintiff -first respondent was a consignee of two consignments - one consisting of 175 pieces of M. S. black pipes 4" diameter and 88 pieces of G. I. pipes 3" diameter and the other consisting of 143 pieces of G. I. pipes 4" diameter and 148 pieces of G. I. pipes 2 " diameter, which were entrusted to the appellants herein for transportation from Sealdah to Royapuram under two railway receipts Nos. 822997 and 322998 dated 24 -4 -1964, one of which has been marked as Ex. B.2 when the goods were taken delivery of at Royapuram, there was a shortage of 26 Nos. of black pipes in the first consignment and 12 pieces of G. I. pipes 4" diameter in the second consignment, as evidenced by the shortage certificate, Ex. A.5 dated 10 -7 -1964. It is with reference to this shortage after issuing notice, the respondents instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3329 -18 in respect of the first consignment and a sum of Rs. 1855 -39 in respect of the second consignment. They also claimed interest at 6 per cent per annum from 10 -7 -1964.

(2.) THE appellants herein repudiated the claim of the respondents. They contended that they were not liable for the suit claim as there was no negligence or misconduct; that the consignors had not conformed to the packing conditions: that they had not bestowed the required care in despatching the goods; and that therefore under Section 77 -C of the Indian Railways Act, the appellants were absolved of their liability. They also contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any interest and that the suit itself was barred by limitation.

(3.) MR . Srisailam, learned counsel for the appellants, advanced two arguments before me. One was that Section 77 -C of the Indian Railways Act absolved the appellants of all liability in respect of the suit claim and the other was that the respondents were not entitled, to any interest from a date prior to the institution of the suit. On the plea of limitation, the learned counsel for the appellants conceded that the limitation question was raised by the appellants on an erroneous assumption that the suit was instituted only on 23 -9 -1967, and that since it was ascertained that the suit was instituted on 6 -9 -1967 itself, the suit was within time and therefore he did not repeat that contention before this court.