BAJRANGLAL AGARWALA Vs. DOMINION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,0-36-9, claimed as damages suffered for non-delivery and/or loss of 308 mds. of jute booked from Poradah to Naihati under a railway receipt No. 299256, dated the 30th October, 1948.

(2.) The Plaintiff bases his claim on an endorsement and transfer of the railway receipt for valuable consideration effected at Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. One Rajani Kanta Haider was the consignor of the goods. the consignee named in the railway receipt being Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. It is the common case of both the parties that the goods virtually perished as the result of a fire while in transit, the portion salvaged being of little value. The claim of the Plaintiff is made up of two sums, viz., Rs. 12,936 as the price of 308 mds. of jute and Rs. 100-9 as the freight paid thereon. The Plaintiff contends that non-delivery of the goods and/or loss of the same was due to the negligence and/or default of the railway administration, its servants and agents. Reliance is placed on a letter written by his pleader Bijoy Krishna Chatterjee on the 9th February, 1949, to the General Manager of the railway administration at Calcutta as the requisite notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be attracted on two grounds, viz., the transfer of the railway receipt and the service of the notice mentioned above within the judisdiction of this Court.

(3.) The Defendant takes the following pleas by way of defence: (a) that in terms of risk note 'C executed in respect of the consignment the railway administration was exonerated from any responsibility for destruction or deterioration or damage to the goods by reason of their being conveyed in open wagons, cars or boats during transit, (b) that the consignment which was conveyed in open truck No. BN 27039 was involved in fire along with two other open trucks while in transit en route Chandmari station on the East Indian Railway and that the outbreak of the fire was an accident beyond the control of the railway administration, (c) that the Plaintiff wrongfully refused to take delivery of the jute which was salvaged after extinction of the fire and the same was sold by public auction, (d) there was no negligence or misconduct on the part of the Defendant, (e) that the Plaintiff was not a transferee or endorsee of the railway receipt as alleged in the plaint, (f) that no sufficient notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been served, (g) that this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as both the forwarding and destination stations were outside the jurisdiction of this Court.