LALCHAND CHOWDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the plaintiff states that on the 7th May, 1948 at Ahmedabad Station, 11 bales of hard waste under three several Parcel Way bills valued at Rs. 9,180/- all belonging for the plaintiff were delivered to the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway and were accepted by them for carriage, under a contract entered into by and between the Railway and the consignor thereof. The contract is evidenced by the Parcel Way bills. The plaintiff had purchased the goods for valuable consideration. The Parcel Way bills were endorsed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was at all material times, and still is, the true owner of all the goods and as the holder and endorsee of the Parcel Way bills is entitled to the benefits of the contract with the said Railway. The B.B. and C. I. Railway agreed to carry for reward these 11 bundles of hard waste from Ahmedabad Station on the said Railway to Manipur Road Station on the Assam Railway through the Great Indian Peninsular Railway, the East Indian Railway, the Oudh Trihut Railway and the Assam' Railway and to deliver the sarhe to the consignee or its assigns. All these Railways are now owned and administered by the Union of India. In breach of the agreement these Railways or any of the Railways through which the goods had to pass failed and neglected to carry the goods safely to the plaintiff within a reasonable time pr at all. The loss occasioned by non-delivery is due to gross negligence, misconduct and want of due care and attention of the servants of the Railway Administrations and as such the plaintiff is entitled to compensation assessed at Rupees 9,180/-. Notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act has been served on the defendant. Notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been served within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff has claimed, inter alia, Rupees 9,180/-, interest and costs.

(2.) The suit was instituted on 21-11-1949. The original written statement was filed on behalf of the Dominion of India as representing the East Indian Railway on 31-3-1950. Some of its paragraphs were amended under an order of this Court made on the 11th July, 1956. The defence in the written statement as amended, inter alia, is that the consignments under the said Parcel Way bills were correctly despatched from the forwarding station and arrived in due course of transit at the Nainhati Station on 7-6-1948. But the goods were seized by the Land Customs Authority and detained there on the 8th June, 1948 for examination thereof. The goods were ultimately released by the Land Customs Authority on 7-2-1950. the goods were then despatched in good condition by the East Indian Railway from the Naihati Station to the Manipur Road Station. The goods reached the destination on dated 7th April, 195ft and were unloaded there. The defendant informed the plaintiff in writing about the arrival of the goods at the destination but the plaintiff refused to take delivery thereof. The defendant's liability in respect of the goods ceased after the plaintiff had refused delivery as aforesaid. The seizure and detention of the consignments by the Land Customs Authority occurred in circumstances beyond the control of the Railway Administration which is not responsible and answerable for the same. The Railway Administration, their agents or servants took all reasonable and proper care for the security and transit of the goods. The Railways or any of them did not guarantee delivery of the goods within any definite time nor was there any time stipulated for the same and the booking of the consignments was subject to the exigencies incidental to railway traffic. In the premises, the claim made by the plaintiff is denied. In any event the compensation claimed is grossly inflated and exaggerated. The defendant also denies the validity or sufficiency or due service of the notices under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant contends that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiffs claim, if any, is also barred by limitation.

(3.) An additional written statement was filed by the plaintiff on 29-4-1958. The plaintiff states here that the loss of goods occurred on 8-6-1948 when the goods were seized by the Land Customs Authorities. The railway authorities involuntarily or through inadvertence lost possession of the goods for the time being and was unable to trace them. The subseuqent despatch of the goods to the destination does not alter the character of the loss. In any event, it was entirely due to the negligence and default on the part of the Railway Authorities that the goods were seized by the Land Customs Authorities and after such seizure the goods were detained for two years. During the detention the goo'ds so much deteriorated as to have become unmerchantable and no buyer would buy and no honest seller would sell them. The goods were a total loss. The defendant is liable for the loss, detention and deterioration amounting to the total loss of the goods. Alternatively, the plaintiff is entitled to damages amounting to the full value of the goods for the defendant's delay in offering delivery. The plaintiff rightly refused to take delivery because (1) there was loss of the goods, (2) the goods so much deteriorated in quality as to have become unmerchantable and were a total loss and of no use to the plaintiff, and (3) there was unreasonable delay in offering delivery of the goods.