UNION OF INDIA Vs. GANESH LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff respondent obtained a decree for compensation against the Union of India in respect of certain consignments which had been despatched over the Eastern Punjab Railway and the East Indian Railway, but had been delivered in a damaged condition. Only two questions having been raised in this appeal. It is not necessary to refer to all the allegations in the plaint and how they were controverted by the defendant. The defendant Union of India has appealed to this Court.

(2.) It will be convenient if we deal with the two consignments separately. On 9-7-1947, a consignment in two lots of 225 and 175 bags of onions had been booked at Magatahsil station then on the North Western Railway, which is now known as the Eastern Punjab Railway. They were despatched to Howrah. The point in dispute now before us is whether there was any risk note given by the consignor at Magatahsil. Although it was alleged by the plaintiff that no risk note had been given, on behalf of the Railway administration it had been alleged that Risk Notes A and B had been signed and made over. No Risk Note was produced. Oral evidence was led, and one of the witnesses for the defendant stated that Risk Notes had been signed on behalf of the consignor at Magatahsil. The Railway invoices which had been filed by the plaintiff at the time of the delivery of the goods which were partly damaged were also not available. What was produced was the record portion of the Railway receipt. On the said copy of the record kept by the Railway administration letters "A.B.", appear. Lower down in the form the expression "Owner's Risk" also appears.

(3.) The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the Risk Notes not having been produced the mere mention of the letters "A.B." taken along with the oral evidence would not be sufficient to prove the terms of the Risk Notes which might have been signed by the party.