TEJENDRA LAL DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This a suit by the endorsee of a railway receipt for compensation for non-delivery of goods. On 8th February, 1948, one M.K. Rahaman consigned under Risk Note (A) 1,302 pieces of old motor parts to be carried from Dohazari Station which was on the line of the then East Bengal Railway in Pakistan, to Ballygunge Station which was on the East Indian Railway owned by the then Dominion of India, and the East Bengal Railway issued a railway receipt in favour of the said M.K. Rahaman in respect of the said consignment. It is alleged in the plaint that the said railway receipt was endorsed for valuable consideration in favour of the Plaintiff in Calcutta by the said M.K. Rahaman who had consigned the goods to "Self". After such endorsement the Plaintiff demanded delivery of the goods from the East Indian Railway but the latter failed and neglected to deliver any part of the goods. It is alleged that this non-delivery was due to the negligence and/or misconduct on the part of the railway administration and its servants but the Plaintiff is unable to give particulars of such negligence or misconduct until full disclosure was made by the railway administration as to how the consignment was dealt with throughout. On 10th June, 1948, the Plaintiff preferred a claim in writing to the East Indian Railway administration and on the 20th January, 1949, notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was given to the General Manager of the said Railway at its Head Office in Calcutta. The Plaintiff claims Rs. 4,430-8 being the price of the said 1,302 pieces of goods as damages suffered by the Plaintiff by reason of the nondelivery.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the Defendant it is admitted that the consignment was booked at Dohazari Station for carriage over the East Bengal Railway and the East Indian Railway to Ballygunge Station but it is stated that the East Bengal Railway was owned by the Dominion of Pakistan and the East Indian Railway was owned by the Dominion of India. It is further alleged that the consignment was booked subject to the terms and conditions of risk notes 'A' and 'B' which were executed in respect of such consignment. It is further stated in the written statement that the consignment was not made over by the Eastern Bengal Railway to the East Indian Railway administration nor did the loss occur on the Railway of the Defendant. The allegation of negligence and misconduct is denied and the validity and sufficiency of the notices under Section 77 of the Railway Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is disputed. It is further denied that any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court or that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is also denied that he Plaintiff has suffered any damage for which the Defendant is liable, and in the alternative it is pleaded that the claim for damages is in any event inflated and is too remote. Certain other defences have also been taken in the written statement but it is not necessary to set them out here.

(3.) The following issues were raised at the hearing: