GANGA BISHAN BANSHILAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the Plaintiff arises out of a suit for recovery of damages for non -delivery of goods. One Bhatchandra Kanta Chotelal booked one bale of O.P. goods at Wandibamda under the Central Railways for delivery to self at Salimar on the South Eastern Railway. The Plaintiff became the owner of the goods and the R.R. was endorsed in his favour. The bale was said to have been lost in transit. Hence, the Plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 1,989 -50 on account of the price of the missing bale of cotton piece -goods and also claimed a sum of Rs. 198 -95 on account of higher market price obtaining in Calcutta. The trial Court disallowed the Plaintiff's further claim of higher market price but allowed a part decree for Rs. 1,989 -50. The defence was that the Plaintiff had no locus standi to commence the suit. The trial Court negatived such defence, but the appellate Court held that the Plaintiff had no locus standi to maintain the suit inasmuch as he had been fully compensated by the Insurance Company, viz. General Assurance Society Ltd., to whom the Plaintiff had given a letter of subrogation and thereby divested him of the right to sue. Needless to say that the appeal was at the instance of the Defendant Union of India owning two Railways. After the suit was dismissed by the appellate Court, the Plaintiff preferred this appeal.

(2.) It was contended on behalf of the Plaintiff Appellant that the lower appellate Court went wrong in construing the provisions of Sec. 135A of the Transfer of Property Act and in applying the principles of law as enunciated in the two cases of this Court in Union of India v/s. Alliance Assurance Company Ltd. if Anr. : 66 C.W.N. 419and Indian Trade and General Insurance Company Ltd. v/s. Union of India : A.I.R. 1957 Cal. 190. It was urged that Sec. 135A(2) and (3) does not divest the owner of the goods to maintain a suit for damages even if a letter of subrogation had been given to the insurer by the insured.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the Respondent Defendant that the suit was rightly dismissed by the appellate Court inasmuch as Sub -section (2) of Sec. 135A of the Transfer of Property Act applied in this case and after being fully compensated by the insurer and after giving a letter of subrogation to the insurer the insured had no locus standi to maintain a suit of the present nature. In this connection, reliance was sought to be placed on a Single Bench decision of this Court, Union of India v/s. Ganga Bishan Banshilal : 75 C.W.N. 730.