VITHOBA SAYANNA BHANDARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff from a dismissal of his suit and it raises a point of law. The point of law raised is whether the declaration referred to in Section 75, Sub -section (1), of the Indian Railways Act, is a declaration to be separately made under that section or whether the statement of account and description of goods as contained in the permit and the statement of the value of the goods as mentioned in the invoice would together be tantamount to a declaration under Section 75, Sub -section (1), when the said permit and invoice are presented by a person delivering the goods to the railway administration for their carriage by railway. The point of law has arisen in this way.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed a suit against the Union of India claiming an amount of Rs. 6,227 -1 -6 on account of the non -delivery of a parcel of certain goods which were booked from Coimbatore, a railway station oh the South Indian Railway, to the plaintiff at Sholapur, a railway station on the then G.I.P. Railway. The amount of Rs. 6,227 -1 -6 is arrived at in this way : Rs. 5,615 -9 -6 as the invoice price of the goods consigned; Rs. 561 -8 -0 as the usual loss of profit and Rs. 50 as costs of notice. The plaintiff's contention is that a parcel containing 6131/2 yards of hand -woven cloth as detailed in the invoice attached to the plaint was dispatched to him from Coimbatore. He is a resident of Sholapur and the parcel was consigned to him from Coimbatore, the destination of the parcel being Sholapur. This parcel was despatched under the Parcel Way Bill No. 272/21. It was despatched from Coimbatore on December 6, 1946. Before the parcel could be accepted by the railway administration at Coimbatore, the person delivering the parcel to the administration was required to produce before it a Government permit. Such a permit was obtained by the consignor in this case. It bore No. 84784. The plaintiff's case is that the abovementioned permit and the invoice of the goods consigned showed the nature, the quantity and the value of the goods consigned. After the permit and the invoice were shown to the booking clerk at the railway station of Coimbatore, a railway receipt was prepared and handed over to the consignor. The railway receipt was to be forwarded to the plaintiff who was the consignee. The plaintiff's contention is that the abovementioned consignment was never delivered to him by the railway administration. According to the plaintiff, the railway administration never informed him as to what had ultimately become of the said consignment. The plaintiff gave notices to the various railway administrations which were concerned in this cast, namely, notices to the General Manager, South Indian Railway, the General Manager, M. and S.M. Railway and the General Manager of the than. G.I.P. Railway. The plaintiff also gave a notice to the Railway Board under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. As the plaintiff did not get a satisfactory response to his notices, he filed the present suit to recover the sum of Rs. 6,227 -1 -6 in manner stated above.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge, S.D., at Sholapur has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved that the Government permit and the invoices for the suit consignment were presented by the consignor to the booking clerk at the railway station of Coimbatore before the railway receipt in respect of the consignment was prepared and handed over to the consignor. The learned Judge has also held that due notices were served upon the various railway administrations represented by the General Managers of the various Railways, namely, the South Indian Railway, the M. and S.M. Railway and the then G.I.P. Railway. But the learned Judge has held that the consignor had failed to make a declaration within the meaning of Section 75 of the Indian Railways Act before the railway authorities at Coimbatore and that, therefore, the railway administration was not responsible for the loss of the consignment in transit. Consistently with this finding of his on a point under Section 75 of the Indian Railways Act, he has ordered the suit of the plaintiff to stand dismissed.