MAHABIR PRASAD BAJRANGLAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful Plaintiff in the Courts below is the Petitioner against the confirming judgment by which the Plaintiff's suit against the railway for recovery of Rs. 219.70 nP. being the price of 200 damaged gunny bags including expenses and profit that the Plaintiff could have made as pleaded in the plaint was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated are these on June 10, 1960, 200 gunny bags were booked in three bundles by an up passenger train from Kolaghat in West Bengal for delivery at Kenduapada in Balasore district in Orissa. On September 10, 1900, the consignment reached the destination at Kenduapada b 31h Down passenger train which obviously shows that the goods were over -carried beyond its destination. On September 1960, the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Station Master, Kenduapada, for assessment and open delivery. The said letter was acknowledged. On November 7, 1960, the Plaintiff gave notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act. On November 18, 1960, the Station Master, Kenduapada, wrote a letter to the Plaintiff requesting hi to take delivery within a fortnight. On November 30, 1960, the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Station Master, Kenduapada, requesting him to give the Plaintiff open delivery. On February 22, 1961, the Plaintiff having not received any response from the railway administration again wrote to the Chief Commercial Superintendent a letter requesting him for settlement of the Plaintiff's claim. On May 4, 19M, the Chief Commercial Superintendent wrote to the Plaintiff a letter requesting him to take delivery within ten days. On June 15, 1961, the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Chief Commercial Superintendent stating that the consignment had been completely damaged and repacked. Ultimately the Plaintiff filed the suit on August 12, 1961, after serving notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure Code. The defence of the railway is that the Plaintiff has no cause of action in that no delivery was taken by the Plaintiff as requested and that there was no damage to the consignment as alleged. Both the Courts below dismissed the Plaintiff's claim on the ground that there was no proof of the alleged damage and that the extent of damage could not be established by the Plaintiff. Hence this civil revision by the Plaintiff.

(3.) THIS point is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Manchand Mulchand Firm through Hariram Singhania and Anr. v. Union of India, 29 C.L.T. 193 through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway and another where it was that as regards extent of damages, it is for the Plaintiff to prove the degree of the alleged deterioration of the goods on the basis of which the Plaintiff claims damages; where a consignment of goods despatched by rail is damaged and a suit is brought against the railway for damages the onus of proving the value of the goods booked and the extent of damage caused to the goods is on the Plaintiff. In the absence of proof of the extent of actual damages alleged to have been suffered, the Plaintiff's claim for damages must fail.