UNION OF INDIA Vs. KRISHNA STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in M. S. No. 75 of 1968 of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was for realisation of Rs. 7936, 64 p. towards the damages for short delivery of groundnut oil dispatched in a wagon of the defendant -railways and for consequential loss suffered by the plaintiff and for interest.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case in short is that it is a registered partnership firm running its business under the name and style Krishna Stores having its place of business at Kantabanji. It is alleged that a consignment of 660 tins of ground -nut oil were dispatched from ex -Navagadh by Saurastra Oil Mill to be delivered at Kantabanji Railway Station in a wagon as per R/R No. B. 54309 dated 30.3.1965, for being carried by the defendant -railways as a carrier at the railway risk rate. It has been alleged that the said ground -nut oil tins were delivered to the defendant -railways at the point of dispatch in properly packed condition providing for necessary damage and the said fact was duly noted in the R/R by the Railway authorities. It has been also alleged that the wagon containing the said consigned goods was changed at Kankira Railway Station at the instance of the Railway authorities. At the point of delivery one of the partners of the plaintiff's firm took delivery of the consigned goods on 23. 4, 1965 when it was found that the seal of the said wagon has been tampered with and 24 tins of groundnut oil and the two empty tins meant for damage were missing. It was further found that 226 tins were dented, joints opened and were leaking. Besides the above loss, 252 tins were also found dented though the contents thereof were intact. The rest of the tins were in good condition. A shortage and damage certificate was granted by the Station Master, Kantabanji Railway Station on 23. 4. 1965, in which above mentioned loss and shortage of the goods found mentioned. The plaintiff alleges that the missing of the groundnut oil tins and the shortage as mentioned above was due to the negligence, misconduct and carelessness of the railway people and the Railway authorities are therefore, liable to compensate the plaintiff. In the schedule of claim appended to the plaint the details of the claim have been mentioned. According to the plaintiff, he sent a notice under Section 78 -B of the Railways Act to the defendant in response to which a sum of Rs. 767.99 p. was paid towards the non -delivery of the missing tins though, according to the plaintiff, the paid amount does not cover the full amount payable on that account. The extra amount payable on that head has also been included in the schedule of claim. The plaintiff's claim for short delivery due to leakage of tins was not considered by the railway authorities for which a notice under Section 80 C. P. C. was served on the defendant where after the present suit has been filed.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge framed as many as six issues. The plaintiff examined one of its partners whereas the defendant did not examine any witness. Several documents were also proved by the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge after analysing the evidence on record came to the following findings: (a) That the plaintiff is a registered firm.