NIRANJAN LAL Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of certain compensation equivalent to market value of the consignment in question as well as loss of interest and cost of notice. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows.

(2.) A consignment of timber wood containing 459 pieces of timber was des patched from Charkarpur to Aligarh Junc tion under a railway receipt dated 8th Feb ruary 1962, which was endorsed in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration. The consignment was booked without actual weighment from the booking station as there existed no arrangement to weigh the wagon. Consequently the railway staff had made a remark in the railway receipt that the goods be weighed during transit. In the normal course the consignment should have reached its destination within a week but it reached the destination on 24th April 1962, after about two months of its despatch. When the consignment was offered for delivery the plaintiff found that the timber pieces had suffered damage and had cracked at several places. They were also short in number and weight. Consequently the plaintiff brought the said facts to the notice of the Station Master, Aligarh, who assured the plaintiff that the assessment and re-weighment and counting of pieces would be done after the unloading of the wagon. The plaintiff got the wagon unloaded at the risk and respon sibility of the railway administration at a place which was about three furlongs away from the usual place keeping timber wagons. The railway administration, however, did not have the damage assessed despite repeated requests in that behalf of the plaintiff. Ulti mately the plaintiff suggested for the ap pointment of arbitrators for assessing the damages, but the railway administration paid no heed to the same. Thereafter the plain tiff requested for the delivery of the goods but the railway staff refused to deliver the consignment unless the plaintiff granted a clear receipt of full weight etc. The plaintiff due to aforesaid acts of misconduct on the part of the railway staff was put to heavy damages. It- transpired to the plaintiff that the railway authorities had sold away the goods. The plaintiff challenged the sale of the goods, inter alia, on the grounds that the compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of the Indian Rail ways Act had not been made. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed the aforesaid damages from the railway administration.

(3.) THE trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 5, 048/52 being the price of the con signment in suit. The rest of the claim was dismissed. Against the said decision the de fendant filed an appeal. Having found that the plaintiff was not justified in refusing to take delivery of the consignment, that the suit was barred by Section 72 of the Indian Railways Act and the goods in question had been sold by the defendant after complying with the provisions of the said Act and that no cause of action for the suit had accrued to the plaintiff the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plain tiff has now come to this Court in second appeal.