UNION OF INDIA Vs. SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHA EXPORT INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment, dated 05-6-2000 passed by the learned single Judge in A.S. No. 1756 of 1986. The said appeal in turn arose out of the decree, dated 16-10-1985, passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Proddatur, in O.S. No. 33 of 1983. The first respondent filed the suit against the appellants (defendants 1 and 2) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,87,556/- towards damages. He pleaded that with an intention to supply groundnut solvent extract oil to M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, Kolkatta (the 4th respondent herein), he booked a wagon (tanker) with the South Central Railway (the 1st appellant herein). According to them, a wagon bearing No. SRTP 37212 was allotted and the same was loaded with groundnut solvent extract oil through their agent. The complaint of the plaintiff was that when the wagon reached 4th respondent, the analysis of sample drawn from it revealed that what is contained in it is rice bran solvent extract oil, and accordingly the consignment was rejected. The plaintiff is said to have verified from the loading station at Yerraguntla and the Station Master is said to have informed him that on account of the fact that a consignment of rice bran oil was booked on the same day by the 2nd respondent herein (3rd defendant) destined to the 3rd respondent (4th defendant), that too through the same agent, a mistake has occurred wherein the consignment of groundnut oil was sent to Bombay and the other one with rice bran oil was sent to Kolkatta. Alleging the negligence on the part of the appellants, the 1st respondent filed the suit.

(2.) The suit was contested by the appellants herein. The fact that the 1st respondent booked a wagon for transport of groundnut oil was admitted. However, according to them, the wagon that was booked in favour of the 1st respondent was with the Number '36410' and though in the Railway Receipt it was mentioned that the wagon is loaded with groundnut oil, it ultimately emerged that it was loaded with the rice bran oil. They further pleaded that it was on account of the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, that the groundnut oil was received by the 3rd respondent, whereas the consignee at Kolkatta rejected the consignment on the ground that it is rice bran oil.

(3.) Through its judgment, dated 16-10-1985, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that there was negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in verifying the loading of the goods. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed A.S. No. 1756 of 1986. A learned single Judge of this Court allowed the said appeal, through the impugned judgment. Hence this L.P.A.