BABUBHAL CLOTH STORES Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very interesting and important question relating to the interpretation and effect of Section 77 -B of the Railways Act arises in this appeal. There are other questions arising but although lam setting aside the learned Judge's judgment on those points the incorrectness of that part of the judgment is not very seriously disputed before me even by the Learned Counsel for the Railways, Mr. Mandrekar. He has very forcefully argued the question relating to the interpretation of Section 77 -B of the Railways Act and I will deal with the same.

(2.) THE few relevant facts relating to the litigation are the following:

(3.) THE last plea is equally technical but some sort of argument can be advanced in support of that plea. The plea was and is that under Section 77 -B of the Railways Act, the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive any compensation from the railway for the loss caused to it because it had not made the requisite declaration as regards the value of the goods at the time of entrustment of the goods to the Railways. Section 77 -B provides in this connection that if the value of the goods being dispatched by the railway exceeds the value of Rs. 500/ - , the consignor has to make a declaration as regards the said value and has to pay extra rates etc. in that behalf if so required by the Railway Tariff. Admittedly, the Plaintiff had not made such declaration. It is the Plaintiffs case that it never knew that such declaration was required to be made. But the fact remains that it did not make such declaration. Not making of such declaration meant that certain result under Section 77 -B of the Railways Act would ensue. That section provides that if such declaration is not made, the consignor shall not be entitled to recover compensation from the Railways on account of loss, destruction, deterioration or damage as regards the goods. The defence, therefore, was that by not giving the delivery of the goods to the consignor all that transpired was that loss was caused to the Plaintiff and that he having failed to make the requisite declaration as regards the value of the goods at the time of their consignment, under Section 77 -B of the Act, the Plaintiffs suit for recovery of compensation in that behalf was not maintainable.