UNION OF INDIA Vs. RASUL AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants against a reversing judgment of the lower appellate court in a suit for recovery of Rs. 3961. 37 on account of non-delivery of goods consigned over the appellant Railways,

(2.) THE plaintiff came forward with a case that he was a businessman and placed orders for cotton piece goods with a manufacturer at Mau. On 18-12-60, a consignment of cotton piece goods was despatched to Cuttack and the corresponding railway receipt was endorsed to the plaintiff. Mau is a railway junction on the North Eastern Railway Station, for delivery to the plaintiff. The plaintiff approached the authorities at the Cuttack Railway Station for taking delivery of the consignment, but until 17-1-61 endorsements were given on the railway receipt that the consignment had not arrived. On 20-1-61, the plaintiff was told that the consignment had arrived and the freight was collected from him with demurrage (wharfage) for 2 days as is evidenced by the money receipt (Ext. 1)and a chit was issued to him to take delivery of the consignment. The averments in the plaint show that the plaintiff's brother (P. W. 1) who had been deputed for the purpose could not find out the consignment meant for him and ultimately delivery could not be taken. On the footing that it was a case of non-delivery, a claim was lodged, notice was issued and the suit was filed on 17-3-62.

(3.) THE defence taken by the two Railways was that there was defect in the notice, there was limitation under Article 31 of the Limitation Act, and the plaintiff had not been offered a different parcel than what was booked from Mau and was meant for him.