RALLIS (INDIA) LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the Plaintiff has claimed Rs. 17,985 as damages from the Defendant for wrongful conversion of 109 half bales of jute each weighing 1 1/2mds. out of a total number of 471 half bales mentioned in the Railway Receipt No. 037139 dated April 30, 1951, issued by the Eastern Railway. The Defendant has admitted in its pleadings that those goods were not delivered to the Plaintiff but has denied the allegation of their wrongful conversion on the plea that those goods were delivered to a wrong person due to a mistake committed by a Railway employee and has set up the plea of limitation as its main defence. In view of the state of pleadings, the following issues were framed:

(2.) One Mr. Bhairodan Jain, since deceased, was an employee of Mr. Ramlal Golcha who was the previous owner of those goods. Mr. Jain was the consignor and the consignee of those goods and after their arrival from Katihar Railway Station to Cossipore Railway Station they were unloaded on May 8, 1951, and were kept by the Railway in Cossipore Railway Shed No. 23. One Ramlal Choudhury was the carter of Pannalal Sarogi who was the broker of M/s Sardarmull Hulaschand and another lot of 107 half bales of jute belonging to M/s Sardarmull Hulaschand 'under a different Railway receipt was unloaded on the same day at Cossipore Railway Station and were kept in the same shed by the Railway. On May 10, 1951, out of those 471 bales the Railway delivered 362 bales to the Plaintiff and did not deliver the remaining 109 bales to the Plaintiff. On the same day Ramlal came to the Railway shed for taking delivery of the goods belonging to M/s. Sardarmull Hulaschand--hereinafter referred to as the Firm. A Railway employee delivered the goods in suit to Ramlal and not the goods belonging to the Firm. This fact was detected by the Railway on May 11, 1951, and on the next day, the Railway called upon Safogi to deliver those goods to the Plaintiff and to take delivery of the other lot belonging to the Firm from the Railway vide para. 3(a) of the written statement and admitted by the Plaintiff through counsel.

(3.) By the letter of May 12, 1951, the Railway asked Sarogi to return those goods to the Railway and on May 24, 1951, the Plaintiff requested the Railway to deliver those goods to the Plaintiff. The Firm by its letter of May 25, 1951, asked the Railway to take back those goods Immediately On payment of godown rent, cartage and incidental expenses, but the Railway was not willing to pay those charges and, therefore, by the letter of June 8, 1951, asked the Firm to return those goods to the Railway. As the goods were not delivered to the Plaintiff on July 2, 1951, the Plaintiff requested the Railway to issue a short certificate. On July 17, 1951, the Railway again requested the Firm either to settle the matter with the Plaintiff by giving delivery of those goods to. the Plaintiff or to return those goods to the Railway, but in this letter the Railway maintained its silence relating to the payment of those charges lawfully claimed by the Firm. A copy of this letter was sent to the Plaintiff. On August 14, 1951, the Plaintiff again requested the Railway to issue a short-certificate, but the Railway did not comply with this request and then on September 8, 1951, the Plaintiff served the notice dated September 4, 1951, under Section 77 of the Railways Act, 1890, claiming Rs. 17,985 from the Railway for those goods and in reply the Railway by its letter dated November 11, 1951, requested the Plaintiff to send a representative for settling this claim.