UNION OF INDIA Vs. TUBES AND MALLEABLES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these civil revision petitions the question which arises for consideration is a very simple one. Iron pipes were purchased by the plaintiff-respondent from a third party and it booked the same through the railway belonging to the petitioner-Union of India, at Tatanagar, the station of destination being Bangalore and other places. It is common ground in all these cases that there was short delivery certificate was issued to the consignor in all these cases. Except in one case where the Insurance Company has subrogated itself, in the place of the consignor, the plaintiff-respondent is the same in all the petitions. I shall deal with the relevant facts in two sets of cases, as similar points arise in them. CRP 3510 of 1976 is against the judgment of the New Trial Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Madras in connection with the despatch of iron pipes from Tatanagar to Bangalore. The goods arrived at Bangalore in or about Nov. 1970, and open delivery certificate was issued on 17-11-1970. After protracted correspondence, which is not unusual with the railways and Government departments. the railway wrote under Ex. P. 5 as follows:--

(2.) In the other set of cases also (C.R.P. 3517 and 3520 of 1976) open delivery was sought and open delivery certificate was issued by the railway consequent upon discovery of shortage in the goods, at this station of destination, and this certificate was issued on 18-9-1970. Again, after protracted correspondence, the railway authorities issued a cheque for a certain sum, but stating expressly that it was in full and final settlement of the claim for refund made by the plaintiff.

(3.) The court below, while dealing with the claim, thought that the payment made by cheque on 8-2-1972, in one case, and on 10-5-1971 and 5-3-1971, in the other, was sufficient to decree the suit instituted by the plaintiff within 3 years and 2 months from those dates respectively, it further thought that such payment, though represented to be in full and final settlement of the claim raised by the plaintiff, could be viewed as payment towards a debt within the meaning of S. 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and that therefore the suits instituted within 3 years and two months from those dates were within time. I am not recapitulating the facts in each case, as they are more or less similar, except for the difference in dates when open delivery certificate was issued and payment by cheque was made by the railway to the plaintiff. But the facts are slightly different in the above two sets of civil revision petitions which are therefore separately dealt with.