THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI) OWNING THE NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER Vs. SAKTHI TEXTILES BY ITS PARTNER, K.A. MARKANDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point involved in this revision petition is a very short question of limitation relating to Section 78 -B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that the consignor booked the goods in question, for transit by the Railway, on 28th August, 1963, and delivered the goods for such transit at Erode, the destination being Ahimanpur in North India. We have no means of ascertaining whether the goods ever reached the destination, Ahimanpur, or not. But the consignor, finding that the consignee never reported delivery, wrote a letter on 31st December, 1963 to the Station Master at Ahimanpur, enclosing the relevant railway receipt, and asking that Station Master to re -book the goods back to Erode. This letter was never acknowledged by the Station Master, and, apparently, no action was taken thereon. On 11th April, 1964 and 25th April, 1964, the consignor wrote further letters to the same Officer, but they were in vain. Ultimately, on 14th May, 1964 the consignor made a formal claim to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, and there was a letter in reply to the effect that the further records, if any, might be sent for investigation, but that the reply was without prejudice to the rights of the Railway. Ultimately, after notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, the suit was instituted for recovery of the goods valued at below Rs. 250. The defence that I am now concerned with, is the plea of the bar of limitation under Section 78 -B.

(3.) ON the facts, as stated above, the bar would clearly appear to be applicable. It is impossible to take any other date, as the date of delivery of the goods to be carried by the Railway Administration, within the meaning of Section 78 -B, Sub -clause (a) except the date 28th August, 1963. In this connection, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on a decision of the Division Bench of the Assam High Court in Amarchand v. Union of India A.I.R. 1955 Ass 221, where the learned Judges have expressed the view that the limitation could conceivably be also reckoned from the date when the goods were to be delivered, or were delivered, to the consignee. I find it extremely difficult to accept this interpretation, since the language of Section 78 -B is explicit in its terms, that the relevant date must be the date when the "goods were delivered to be carried by railway ". A further condition of difficulty here, is that we have no means whatever of ascertaining whether the goods ever reached Ahimanpur at all. The suggestion of learned Counsel for the respondent is that the goods must have reached Ahimanpur, and that the Station Master at Ahimanpur probably utilised the railway receipt which was sent to him by the consignor to seize the goods and to convert them to private use. This is a conjecture, pure and simple there is no iota of evidence in the record, on which any such inference could be supported. For the moment, I am concerned with this aspect, only to show that the date which is relevant to Section 78 -B Sub -clause (a), on the facts of this case, can only be 28th August, 1963 and could be no other date.