UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARI SHANKER GAURI SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present second appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 12 -4 - 1973 rendered by Lower Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1974 whereby the judgment and decree aforestated passed in O.S. No. 10 of 1971, M/s. Hari Shanker Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, was affirmed.

(2.) IT would appear that the plaintiff respondent instituted O.S. No. 10 of 1971 with the allegations that a consignment consisting of 316 boxes containing tin sheets was booked with the Railways at Tatanagar Tin Plate Siding for onward transmission and delivery to M/s. Associated Industrial Corporation at Kanpur Fazalganj Goods Shed vide R.R. No. 238057 dated 9 -7 -1969. The goods according to the record was taken delivery of by M/s. Associated Industrial Corporation at Kanpur Fazalganj Goods Shed on 22 -7 - 1969 alongwith a certificate of damage issued by Railway Administration at Kanpur after it was noticed that some of the boxes of tin plates had become wet and rusted and as a sequel thereto, the plaintiff suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 6,946/ -. From a perusal of written statement, it would appear that defendants repudiated the plaint allegations and averred that the goods were loaded by Tata Tin Plate Company without any supervision of Railway Administration. It was further averred that the wagons in which goods were loaded, were watertight wagons and in case, the wagons developed some fault in transit as a result of which damage was caused to the goods, the defendants could not be held liable to damages. Other allied pleas were also pressed into service in extenuation of the claims of plaintiff for damages.

(3.) SUBMERGING all the others arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed into service the only argument across the bar that the goods were not loaded at Tatanagar Tin Plate Siding under the supervision of Railway Administration and they were loaded by Tata Tin Plate Company itself and by this reckoning, proceeds the argument, the Railway Administration could not be made liable to damages occasioned to the plaintiff.