SOHANLAL SAMPATLAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Plaintiff whose suit for damages against the Union of India representing Railways was decreed by the learned Munsif, Howrah, but was dismissed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge, Howrah. On May 22, 1952, a consignment of 10 bales of cloth were made over to the Eastern Railway Administration at Wadi Bandar for carriage to Shalimar. When the goods arrived at Shalimar, it was found that one of the bales was in damaged condition. The Plaintiff took delivery of the other 9 bales and refused to take delivery of the damaged bale before the damage was assessed by a public surveyor. The Railway Administration refused it and there was correspondence between the parties and ultimately, as the Plaintiff did not take delivery of the bale, the Defendant sold the same in public auction on August 27, 1953, after asking for wharfage charges from the Plaintiff. According to the Defendant, there is no provision in any law whatsoever that the damage is to be assessed by the public surveyor before it could be taken delivery of by the party concerned. The bale in question was sold for Rs. 1,100 and after deducting the wharfage charges the Railway Administration offered a sum of Rs. 500 and 15 annas to the Plaintiff which he had refused. The Plaintiff had laid his claim at Rs. 1,920 -2 -6. The learned Munsif decreed the suit in full holding that the damage was caused by the Railway Administration and the Plaintiff was justified in claiming assessment by a public surveyor.

(2.) On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that there was no provision in any law under which the Plaintiff could claim assessment by a public surveyor and that the Plaintiff was entirely wrong in not taking delivery of the bale and as such, the Railway Administration was justified in selling it at a public auction. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

(3.) In this appeal, the first point that is urged by Mr. Nani Coomer Chakravorti, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, is to the effect that the learned Subordinate Judge should have at least decreed the suit in part for a sum of Rs. 500 -15 -0 which was admittedly due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. As we have already pointed out, even according to the Defendant, this sum was due to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge should have decreed the suit at least for this sum.