TEJENDRA NATH DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,120 being compensation in respect of snort delivery of a certain consignment of goods which was entrusted to the East Bengal Bailway in Pakistan for carriage from Dohazari Station to the Ballygunge Railway Station which was on the then East Indian. Railway owned by the then Dominion of India, and for certain other incidental reliefs.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiff as laid in the plaint is that on or about 6th February 1948, one H.P. Majumdar consigned under invoice No. 3 and railway receipt bearing No. 651871, 1,728 pieces of motor parts to be carried from Dohazari to Ballygunge. The goods had been consigned by the said H.P. Majumdar to self but it is alleged that the railway receipt was endorsed for valuable consideration in favour of the Plaintiff in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. The East Indian Railway delivered 1,444 pieces only to the Plaintiff at the Ballygunge Station but failed and neglected to deliver the balance of 284 pieces and this non-delivery was due to the negligence and/or misconduct of the said railway administration and/or its servants. The Plaintiff, however, is unable to give particulars of such negligence until full disclosures were made by the Defendant as to how the consignment was dealt with throughout. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff claims Rs. 13,711 as the value of the said 284 pieces of goods, the particulars whereof are set out in para. 6 of the plaint and the Plaintiff also claims a further sum of Rs. 409 as the loading and other charges incurred in connection with the said consignment. On the 2nd June, 1948, the Plaintiff preferred a claim in writing under Section 77 of the Railways Act and on or about the 19th November, 1948, notice under Section 80 of the Code is alleged to have been given to the General Manager of the East Indian Railway at the head office in Calcutta.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the Defendant it is admitted that the consignment was booked at Dohazari Station for carriage over the Eastern Bengal Railway and the East Indian Railway, to Ballygunge Station, but it is pointed out that the Eastern Bengal Railway was owned by the Dominion of Pakistan and the East Indian Railway was owned by the Dominion of India. It is also admitted that the consignment that was despatched from Dohazari Station arrived in due course of transit at Ballygunge Station on the 17th February, 1948 and on that date the East Indian Railway Administration duly delivered the said consignment under clear receipt in the same manner, condition and quantity as they received the same from the Eastern Bengal Railway; but assuming that there was any shortage, which the Defendant does not however admit, such shortage or loss did not occur on the line of the East Indian Railway owned by the Defendant. It is further alleged that the East Indian Railway took all reasonable and proper care for the security, transit and delivery of the "aid consignment, which was made over to the East Indian Railway by the Eastern Bengal Railway for carriage up to the Ballygunge Station. The charge of negligence and misconduct is denied and it is also denied that the Plaintiff has suffered any damages. It is further submitted that in any event the claim for damages is grossly inflated, exaggerated and too remote. The validity and sufficiency of the alleged notice under Section 80 of the Code is also disputed and it is denied that the alleged notice was served on the appropriate authorities as required by law. The jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit is also disputed on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court.