SRI VENKATESWARA GROUNDNUT OIL PRODUCERS, A FIRM DEALING IN OILS AND OIL MANUFACTURE REPTD. BY PARTNER KOPUGANTI YERRAM SETTI Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPTD. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, (SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY) AND TWO OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition two questions of some importance, relating to the railway's liability to compensate for damage sustained in the course of transit of goods, arise for consideration. It is filed under section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit.

(2.) He filed the suit against three respondents who represent the South Eastern Railway, the Western Railway and the Central Railway to recover a sum of Rs. 1781-08 paise towards compensation for the damage caused to the goods sent through the railway from Biramgaum to Visakhapatnam. The plaintiff is a registered firm dealing in oils. It placed an order with a firm at Jamnagar for two consignments of ground-nut oil. The consignments were sent in two instalments, each consisting of 696 tins loaded in two wagons. The consignments were dated 1st and 7th March 1965. The plaintiff says that the consignments were at the railway risk, while on the other hand the defendants representing the railways contend that they were dispatched at the owner's risk. On the arrival of the consignments at Visakhapatnam, the plaintiff found that oil was leaking from the sides of the wagons and the sides of the wagons cut. He therefore demanded open delivery which was given 42 tins in the second consignment were badly cut and full of holes on their sides. In the other consignment 25 tins were found damaged in like manner. Entries were made in the Railway Delivery Register showing the damage at the time of the delivery of the two consignments. The plaintiff further alleges that the damages was due to the negligence and misconduct of the railways.

(3.) The 1st defendant filed a written statement stating that it was not true that the goods were booked at the railway's risk but on the other hand they were loaded at the owners' risk. They were received at the destination with seals intact; there was no interference by the railway personnel in transit and so it was not responsible for the shortage.