LAWS(ORI)-1958-8-1

NANDA KISHORE CHIRANJILAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On August 25, 1958
NANDA KISHORE CHIRANJILAL Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs, who were unsuccessful in both the courts below, have come with this second appeal against the confirming judgment of the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit for recovery of damages on account of the plaintiffs' having suffered damages of their articles consigned from Faruqabad to Bhadrak. The plaintiffs" version is that a consignment of 273 baskets of potatoes weighing nearly 307 maunds was despatched on 27-5-52 from Faruquabad situate in East Indian Railway at the time when the consignment was made, and the consignment reached Bhadrak the place of destination on 86-52 and the plaintiffs when taking delivery of the goods on 9-6-52 found that 100 baskets had suffered damages to the extent of 80 per cent, another 100 baskets to the extent of 40 per cent and the rest 73 baskets to the extent of 35 per cent. The plaintiffs therefore levied the claim at Rs. 2445/-. The plaintiffs aver that the damages were on account of the delay and negligence on the part of the railway employees. The defence was that there was no negligence or delay in the transit of the goods; on the contrary the plaintiffs paid a lower rate and acknowledged that the transit was to be at the owner's risk; the damages were suffered in due course of transit even though there was no negligence on the part of the railway authorities and therefore the railway is not liable.

(2.) It is to be noted at the outset that Section 74 of the Indian Railways Act has undergone changes by introducing several sections with the set purpose or settling various conflicts of decisions which were extsting prior to the introduction of legislation by the Central Legislature which took place in 1950. The relevant provision is 74-C which runs as follows:

(3.) The main thing to be seen in this case is whether it has been proved as a matter of fact that the consignment was carried at railway risk rate or at owner's risk rate. The defendant relies upon Ex. A, Railway receipt which was, it is to be noted, exhibited on admission. It runs as follows: