JESRAJ SUBHACHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Non-delivery of two consignments of art silk piece goods covered by Railway Receipts Nos. 948503 and 948521, both dated Aug. 14, 1966 is the basis of the plaintiff's claim herein for Rs. 14,746.46 as damages against the Railways, as carriers represented by the defendant Union of India.

(2.) It is alleged in the plaint that on Aug. 14, 1966 one R. Bhoggilal and Co., as agents of the plaintiff, delivered the said consignments to the Central Eastern Railway at Wadi Bandar Station, Bombay for carriage to Shalimar on the South Eastern Railways and there to be delivered to the plaintiff. It is alleged that on or about Sept. 17, 1966 and Oct. 3, 1966, the two Railway Receipts were duly endorsed in favour of the plaintiff within the original jurisdiction of this court. It is alleged further that the said goods were not delivered and/or were lost in transit and the plaintiff being deprived of its goods is entitled to be compensated by the defendant for the value thereof namely Rs. 14,746.46, payable to the plaintiff at its place of business within the said jurisdiction. Notice under Section 80 of the C. P. C. is alleged to have been duly served on the defendant on May 17 and 19, 1967.

(3.) In the written statement of the defendant it is denied that R. Bhoggilal and Co. delivered the said goods to the defendant as agent or on behalf of the plaintiff. It is denied further that the plaintiff is the owner of or is in any way interested in the consignments or that any of the receipts were endorsed in favour of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the consignments covered under Receipt No. 948503 reached destination on Aug. 23, 1966, and delivery thereof was not taken within thirty days after termination of the transit. Accordingly it is contended that the defendant was absolved of liability if any, under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. The other consignment under Railway Receipt No. 948521 it is alleged was duly delivered on Sept. 19, 1966. The sufficiency and/or validity of the notice under Section 80 is disputed. It Is further contended that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as no part of the plaintiff's cause of action arose within the said jurisdiction.