DOMINION OF INDIA Vs. GAYA PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of four different suits which were numbered as Suits Nos. 64/5 of 1947, 72/10 of 1947, 73/11 of 1947 and 74/12 of 1947 in the trial Court. In all the four suits the plaintiffs and the defendants were the same. The suits all related to a claim made by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendants-appellants who are the two railway administrations at present known as the Central Railway and the Northern Railway and which, at the time of the suits were known as the G. I. P. Railway and the E. I. Railway; The claim was in respect of damages to baskets of oranges which were sent from the railway station Katol on the Central Railway to Lucknow on the Northern Railway. The consignors of the four consignments were different but the consignee in each case was the plaintiff-respondent. The first consignment in question was booked from Katol on the 21st of March, 1946 and the other three consignments were booked 011 the 22nd of April, 1946. In each case it was mentioned in the railway receipt that the wagon was to be carried by C. O. G. Special. We understand from learned counsel for the appellant that the correct term used is C. O. G. which letters connote trains known as Coaching Specials. These trains are parcel trains which run faster than goods trains like parcel express. The goods consigned on the 21st of March 1946 were delivered at Lucknow to the plaintiff-respondent on the 30th of March, 1946 when it was found that the oranges had considerably deteriorated. The amount of deterioration was estimated by the Station Superintendent, Lucknow at 75% which was noted down in the delivery book. The other three consignments were offered for delivery at Lucknow to the plaintiff-respondent on 3rd May, 1946 when the plaintiff refused to take delivery on the ground that the goods had deteriorated completely and become unfit for consumption. A note was made by the plaintiff-respondent In the delivery book that the contents of these wagons were extremely rotten and unfit for human consumption so that he was refusing to take delivery. Thereafter the plaintiff-respondent gave notice to the two railway administrations concerned and then instituted these four suits for recovery of damages incurred by the plaintiff by reason of the late delivery of the goods. Various defences were raised to the suits. All the four suits were tried together and decided by one single judgment. The Court rejected the pleas in defence and decreed the suit for damages.

(2.) Four different appeals have been filed in this Court but since all the suits were decided by one judgment and common questions are involved, we are also deciding these four appeals by one single judgment.

(3.) When these appeals came up for hearing before us, learned counsel for the appellants urged three points before us. The first point urged was that the plaintiff-respondent, who was only the consignee and not the owner of the goods of these four consignments, had no right to bring suits for damages to or loss of the goods. The second point urged was that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-respondent to establish that the damage to the goods was the result of misconduct on the part of the railway administrations or their servants in view of the risk notes which had been executed by the consignors at the time when the goods were booked and since the plaintiff-respondent failed to establish any such misconduct, he was not entitled to a decree in any of these suits. The third point, which learned counsel took up, was that the amount of damages awarded by the lower Court had not been properly assessed. No other points besides these three were canvassed before us on behalf of the appellants.