LAWS(ORI)-1964-1-7

UNION OF INDIA Vs. MADHUSUDAN SAHU

Decided On January 15, 1964
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Appellant
V/S
MADHUSUDAN SAHU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by tie Union of India, representing the South, Eastern railways, against the confirming judgment of the Sub. Judge of Sambalpur dated 28th July, 1962, in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of RS. 3999/-from the appellant.

(2.) THE suit was filed by respondent Madhusudhan Sahu, the plaintiff in this case. According to him, he was carrying on business in cloth under the name and style of 'orissa Cloth Stores' which was previously known as "madhusudhan 'ramkumar mahalaxmi Bastra Bhandar". On 22-2-57 he placed an order for our bales of cloth on Messrs Shewchandri Muralidhar of Calcutta to be delivered at Rourkela Railway station on South Eastern Railways. The consignment was despatched from How-rah on 2-2-57 under R/r No. 37519 in the name of the consignee Madhusudhan Ramkumar. On 19-2-57 the consignee took delivery of only two bales and as there was shortage of two bales, he was given a shortage certificate (Ext. 5) by the Station Master, Rourkela. On 20-31957 and 1-2-1958 the plaintiff consignee gave due notice under Section 77 of the indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Exts. 1 and 2, respectively and obtained necessary acknowledgments (Exts. 1 (a) and 2 (a) ) from the defdt. Railways. As the goods or the value thereof was not delivered to the plaintiff, he filed the present suit on 8-4-59 for realising the aforesaid amount. The plaintiff claimed that on account of the negligence and misconduct on the part of the Railway authorities, he has been put to the loss of the goods. He also claimed that the suit is saved from limitation on account of the acknowledgments of the liabilities made by the railway authorities in their letters, Exts. 3 and 4 dated 3-1-1958 and 21-3 58.

(3.) THE case of the defendant Railways was that notice was not in accordance with law, the suit was barred by limitation, and there was no negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway staff in carrying the consignment to the destination.