MATADIN JHUNJHUNWALLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On November 29, 1951, this suit was instituted after serving notice under Sec. 77 of the Railways Act and notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure' with leave "under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent against the Defendant representing the East Indian Railway and East Punjab Railway Administration for recovery of Rs. 3,871 as loss and damages suffered by the Plaintiff in respect of 182 bags of gram out of 200 bags consigned under Invoice No. 38, Railway Receipt No. 183986, dated September 19, 1950, from Patiala to Howrah. In the plaint it is, inter alia, alleged that the Plaintiff is the indorsee and consignee of the said Railway receipt and purchased the goods covered thereunder, and on their arrival at Howrah it was found that the contents of 182 bags were damaged and deteriorated and were mixed up with barley, husk of gram and other dirty articles by rats and stray cattle and the seals of the bags were also removed although the goods were sent in good condition, properly packed and sealed. The Plaintiff alleged that the said goods were unfit for human consumption or for any useful purpose and the Railway authorities surveyed the said damages and issued an assessment report dated December 4, 1950, in which they falsely stated that the said consignment was sent in the same condition in which they were found at Howrah. The Plaintiff further alleged that due to gross negligence of the Railway Administration and its servants and agents those goods were damaged and he assessed the said damages at Rs. 3,871 alleging the same to be the fair market value of the said goods in October and November 1950.

(2.) In the written statement execution of the Railway receipt was admitted but endorsement in favour of the Plaintiff was denied. It was alleged that one Kastur Chand was the consignee of the said goods and the said 200 bags said to contain gram were carried from Patiala to Howrah in the same condition in which they were delivered at Patiala and those identical goods were consigned under the Railway receipt. The Defendant denied all other allegations made in the plaint including the charges of negligence and misconduct and disputed the validity of the notice under Sec. 80 of the Code.

(3.) Following issues were settled by me: