UNION OF INDIA Vs. FIRM KESHAVAJI VALLABHDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of civil Procedure, this appeal takes an exception to the judgment dated 29-6-1989 and decree passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 648 of 1984 whereby the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 23-4-1984 and decree passed by the 7th joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. in Regular Civil Suit no. 972 of 1982 dismissing the suit is set aside and directed the defendants to pay Rs. 8,201.60 to the plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of Rs. 8,126/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

(2.) Relevant facts can briefly be stated as under: - the Firm M/s. Kisanlal Durgaprasad of salem Market, Madras, dispatched consignment of 250 bags of Topica Starches on 27-3-1979 and the goods were delivered at the railway station for transportation after obtaining railway receipt No. 0362/8. The goods were transported by the railway wagon which reached Nagpur and the plaintiff took up open delivery of goods on 16-10-1979. The name of the consignee mentioned on the railway receipt was the said firm M/s. Kisanlal durgaprasad. The goods were damaged in transit and, therefore, the plaintiff who was working as Commission Agent had instituted a suit claiming damages. The defendants, contended that the plaintiff-firm was not entitled to sue for damages and the suit was liable to be dismissed. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence and considering me legal position dismissed the suit with costs. Being aggrieved by this Judgment and decree, the plaintiff carried appeal to the District Court and the learned 10th Additional District Judge allowed the appeal with costs, as mentioned above. This judgment of the appellate Court is challenged in this second appeal.

(3.) Mr. Chandurkar, learned senior counsel, for the appellant contended that the railway receipt was bearing the name of the firm M/s. Kisanlal Durgaprasad who himself was the consignor as well as the consignee and therefore he alone can sue the railway administration for claiming damages. He contended that the plaintiff was working as commission Agent and therefore had no title to the goods and the suit itself is not maintainable. In support of these submissions he relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Chhangamal Harpaldas Vs. Dominion of India - AIR 1957 Bom. 267 and also on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. The West Punjab Factories Ltd.- AIR 1966 SC 395.