SUJANMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 16-4-1983 at the time of admission of this appeal.i) Whether the respondent is not liable in law for the delay caused in transit of the consignment.ii) Whether the lower appellate Court committed an error of law in disallowing appellant's claim of damages of Rs. 973/- for the damage caused to the consignment in transit?iii) Whether the lower appellate Court committed an error of law in disallowing appellant's claim of damage Rs. 1466.89 being the amount of interest charged by the bank ?

(2.) The facts relevant for decision of the questions referred to above are that the plaintiff was the consignee of wheat as per Railway Receipt No. 364256 dated 19-6-1978. 275 bags of wheat were despatched from Gwalior to Bamania under this railway receipt. The bags reached that destination on 24-9-1978. Thus there was delay of about 95 days. At the destination the damage caused to the wheat was assessed on 13-10-1978 and the damage certificate issued by the Railway Authorities is Ex. P/3. According to this certificate, damage was assessed at Rs. 973/-. This certificate further shows that there was germination in the bags and there were insects also.

(3.) The plaintiff claimed the amount of Rs. 973/- as damages caused to the wheat due to delay in carriage. He also claimed the amount of Rs. 1,466.89 Ps. as interest charged by the bank for the delay in retiring the railway receipt from the bank. According to the plaintiff he did not take the railway receipt from the bank as the goods had not arrived at the destination. The defendants denied the liability under both the heads mentioned above. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on both counts with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. The first appellate Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff did not lead any evidence on the point that the wheat was not infected when it was loaded in the wagon by the consignor. The burden of proof was placed on the plaintiff to show that good quality of wheat was despatched. Claim for interest charged by the bank was disallowed on the ground that the plaintiff did not take railway receipt from the bank for taking delivery of the goods from the railways during the period when the goods should have ordinarily reached destination.