FIRM NARAINDAS PITAMCHAND Vs. FIRM SHANKER LAL MOHANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's ap peal in which he has prayed for a decree in the further sum of Rs. 3,301.16 P. against the Union of India respondent No. 5.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,920.19 P. against the defendants. Defendants first set were con signors and they are residents of Aligarh, whereas defendant second set was the Union of India which owns the railways. A con signment of maize was dispatched from Nizamabad Railway station in Andhra Pra desh on the 19th September, 1964. This consignment reached Aligarh at the destina tion station on 3rd of October, 1964. The consignee after inspecting the goods was of the opinion that the goods had deteriorated and were damaged and asked for, an open delivery. The railways had asked that be fore any assessment of damage was done, the consignee better take book delivery and that was done. On the lOh of October, 1964 an officer of the railways expressed his in ability to make the assessment as the dama ges were beyond his power and the assess ment could only be made by the Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Allahabad who would be asked to come and do it. Plain tiff thereafter says that nothing was done in the matter and the assessment of the damage was not done. The delivery of the goods was not taken till the 12th of July, 1965, when it was so done under the order of the court, in the meantime, the plaintiff had filed a suit against the two sets of the de fendants and had claimed damages.

(3.) THAT against the above decision, two appeals were filed, one by the plaintiff -Appeal No. 490 of 1966 and the other Ap peal No. 464 of 1966 was filed by the defen dant first set, the consignor. By its judgment the Lower Appellate Court allowed both the appeals and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and instead decreed the plain tiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,587.42 P. along with pendent elite and future interest at 6% p. a. with proportionate costs in both the courts, against the Union of India. The suit was dismissed against the defendants first set who were, however, directed to bear their own costs in both the courts.