K.V.V. ARDHANARI CHETTIAR AND CO., BY MANAGING PARTNER K.V.V. ARDHANARI CHETTIAR Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal raises the question as to what is the true meaning of the words "loss, destruction or deterioration of the parcel or package" in Section 75(1) of the Indian Railways Act.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased five bundles of raw silk from Messrs. Vishandoss Amarnath of Bombay. The vendors sent the goods by railway parcel on 8th December, 1947, delivering the same at Bombay Victoria Terminus to be booked by railway to Salem Town station for delivery to the plaintiff at Salem Town. Ex. B -2 the parcel way bill given to the consignor by the railway company, was forwarded to the plaintiff who presented the same at the Salem railway station and he was given delivery of only four bundles on 19th December, 1947. He did not receive one bundle of raw silk which was stated to have been despatched along with the other four bundles and the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 3,488 -15 -0 as the cost price of the said bundle of raw silk. His case in the plaint was that when the consignment arrived at Salem Town, it was found short by one bundle, that one bundle of raw silk which bore No. 177 on the gunny covering was not delivered to the plaintiff and has been lost and that "the said loss was due to the misconduct or gross negligence of the servants of either or both of the three railway systems concerned", namely, the G.I.P., M. & S.M. and S.I. Railways, the first defendant being the Governor -General of India in Council. The suit was for recovery of damages for non -delivery of one bundle of raw silk and the plaintiffs contend that the defendants are bound in law to make good the loss occasioned, to the plaintiff by the non -delivery of the goods in question.

(3.) BOTH the Courts blow upheld this contention of the railway company and dismissed the action.