LALJI CHATURVEDI SHASTRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. The appellant had initiated Original Suit No, 203 of 1967 in the Court of Munsif Saidpur at Ghazipur for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 280. 33. It was stated that for his medical profession the plaintiff had purchased 26 cases of medicines weighing 4 quintals from defendant No. 2 and the same were consigned on 11-6-66 by defendant No. 2 to the Northern Railway at Hardwar Railway Station for carriage to Ghazipur City in safe and sound conditions. When the consignment reached the destination it was found pilfered and short delivery was effected on 9. 5. 66 under protest. It was stated that 5 cases of medicines were found pilfered and medicines were removed therefrom. Open delivery was taken for these cases and respective weights were taken. It was alleged that this short delivery was caused due to negligence and misconduct of the servants of the Northern Railways and North Eastern Railways and the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 256. 95 due notices were given under the Civil Procedure Code and the Northern Railways Act and thereafter the suit was filed.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the Union of India but defendant No. 2 did not contest the suit and it was heard ex-pane against him. THE notices served on the Union of India was described as invalid and time barred. It was stated that the plaintiff had no cause of action and there was no negligence or misconduct on the part of the servants of the railway administration and the defendants were not liable for any loss, if caused to the plaintiff. THE consignor had not followed the Railway Rules for packing the materials and it was the consignor who would be liable further loss and not the Railways.

(3.) THE plaintiff accordingly preferred this second appeal on the ground that the Railways had accepted the fact of short delivery through Ext. A-8 and no further inquiry was permissible under the law and the first Appellate Court had acted with all materials irregularity in going against the admission of the Railway authorities. This admission, according to the appellant was fully confirmed by Ext. 6 which was a copy of the remark at the open delivery and loss was admitted in the written statement. Accordingly, the responsibility of the loss was clearly with the Railways and the first appeal should not have been allowed.