UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAMA SILK FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The firm of sree Rama silk Factory delivered a parcel way bill No. F. 491916 of silks to Railways and declared the worth of parcel to be Rupees 900/-. The firm of sree Leela Mahalakshmi Silk Factory delivered a parcel of Silks to Railways under way bill No. F. 491917 and declared the worth of parcel to be Rs. 900.00. The Firm of Boppe Adeyya sons &co. Delivered a parcel of silks to Railway under way bill no. F. 491918 and declared the worth of parcel to be Rs. 1,500.00. The three parcel were delivered at samalkot Railway station on 15/07/1968. The parcels booked by the three Firms were to be delivered to the Consignors at Siligiri Railway station where they reached on Sept. 22, 1968 and on to the consignees but to imposters who presented forget way bills. There upon the consignor firms in a common notice under section 80 of the code of civil procedure on 23/06/1969 claimed for compensation for loss of goods and laid three suits on 14/07/1971 and in that the firms claimed; The value of silks m F. 491916 to be Rs. 10, 108- 47 in F. 491818 to be Rs. 7, 291-65 ps; The Railways inter alia in their written statement disputed the valuation and liability to the amounts claimed. The learned subordinate Judge at Kakinada decreed the suits on 15/03/1975. Hence the three appeals by the Railways.

(2.) The fact that the firms were not delivered the parcels at Siligiri Railway station is not disputed. The common question raised in the appeals is: What is the amount payable to the consignors? The Railways contend that under sec. 77-B of the Indian Railways Act IX of 1890 ( the Act) on the facts of the case they are liable in law for only such amounts which the consignors had represented at booking Station (Samalkot Railway station and not more. The determination of the issue thus raised requires consideration of some provisions in chapter VII of the Act with the heading "Responsibility of the Railway Administration as carriers". The second schedule was appended to the Act XXXIX of 1961 and section 77-B was substituted. 2-A. When the three parcels were delivered to the Railways as Samalkot, pursuant to the provision in section 77-B of the Act, the consignor declared their value as the parcel were more in value than Rs. 500.00. This declaration was required to be made for collection of tariff for the Railways as carriers are to the contents and to identify whether parcels contained articles particularised in the second schedule both, for collection of tariff and carrying the scheduled goods involved "increased risk" if parcels are lost, destroyed damaged or deteriorated. Therefore the Railways contended the firms are required to declare the value at booking station when parcel delivered to Railways. In other words the Railways argue the consignors of goods if for purpose of tariff payment the value declared by them was less at the booking of the goods. When goods are; lost, destroyed, damaged, deteriorated or mis-delivered, the compensation payable to the consignor, it is argued, is the same as declared value of the parcels when declaration under clause (1) of section 77-b of the Act is made. what is argued in opposition against the Railways is: In the event of mis-delivery of parcels the consignors are not bound by the declaration of valuation made by them and notwithstanding sec. 77-Bthe consignors can claim for the "real value" of the goods.

(3.) There is very little direct authority on the point even in case lodged after the Amendment Act XXXIX of 1961. There were some observations made in cases arising prior to the amendment but it is seen they are of not much assistance. The question came to be considered in Lakshmi Bangle stores v. Union of India, (1975) 1 An WR 1 by a Division Bench of this court. The goods in that case were bangles specified in second schedule and were found damaged in transhipment. On the facts of the case the suit was held barred and the parcels were found: "admittedly the value of each of the packages was less than Rs. 500.00" and there fore it was held "section77-B was not attracted". However, the case of Chunilal v. Governor- General - in- council, AIR 1949 Mad 754 was considered by the Division Bench and was not followed and what was observed by Mack J. is shown in the following passage: