UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAYALAKSHMI AGRO CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the defendants. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 71,010.32 towards compensation for non-delivery of consignment covered by R.R.No. B-850460. The averments in the plaint are that a consignment of B.H.C. Technical Consisting of 191 bags cf 75 kgs. each was despatched from Mitnapur railway station, Western Railway by M/s. Cross Objactions Tata Chemicals Limited for the value of Rs. 64,657.32 covered by their bill No. 5/100/75-76 dated 4-S-1975 to Guntur railway station in the S,C. Railway to the plaintiff under R.R.No. B-850460. The said consignment was loaded at Mitnapur Railway station in the wagon No.S.C.3234 by M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited. The wagon was not received at Guntur station and the plaintiff waited for a period of three months and preferred a claim under section 78-B of the Indian Railway Act to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, South Central Railway, Secunderabad the receipt of which has been acknowledged by the South Central Railway. The plaintiff issued reminders on 2-12-1975 and again on 23-12-1975 but the consignment was not delivered and no reply was sent by the Railway authorities. As the wagon did not reach Guntur Railway station, the plaintiff issued notice under Sec.80 C.P.C. as the consignment was lost on account of the negligence and misconduct of the Railway authorities. In the said notice the plaintiff claimed compensation for non-delivery of consignment of 191 bags of BHC technical and thus the plaintiff is entitled to f ecover the full value of the consignment amounting to Rs. 64,657.32 and also further compensation for the loss sustained by him by way of interest which he suffered by paying Rs.64,633/-in the State Bank of India which comes to morethan Rs. 5441.85 As there was no compliance by the Railway authorities the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit,

(2.) The Second defendant filed written statement stating that the defendant offered delivery on 8-4-1976 of the consignment to the endorsed consignees of the Railway receipt and without receiving the said consignment the plaintiff has no right to file the suit. The negligence attributed to the servants in the alleged delivery is denied. The plaintiff is also put to strict proof of service of valid notices under Sec. 78-B of the Indian Railways Act and Sec, 80 C.P.C. The claim in the suit is highly exaggerated The plaintiff is not entitled to any interest prior to the date of suit as there is neither custom nOr contract for payment of the same.

(3.) On the above pleadings the followings issues were framed for trial: