UNION OF INDIA Vs. DURGADUTT AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for a small amount of Rs. 5528.81 has brought the big Railways before us because as per Shri Duara the decree has been passed in violation of section 74 of the Indian Railways Act, brevimana the Act.

(2.) The decree came to be awarded in the suit filed by the respondent who was the consignee of two bales of handloom sarees. The booking was from Mau Junction and was meant for Nowgong town. The goods reached the destination on 5.3.62 having been booked on 9.2.62. The consignment was accepted by two employees of the plaintiff on 7.3.62 at about 4.30 P.M. It is the case of the suitor that as there was rush at the time of taking delivery and it was getting dark, the consignment could not be examined thoroughly then. A pony cart was hired and the bales were taken to the shop of the plaintiff which is about a mile from the railway station. PW. 1, the attorney of the plaintiff firm, looked at the bales and found that there were marks of tampering and also damage in the packing cover. Some foul play was suspected and so the bales were brought back immediately to the railway station. This was at about 6 P.M. An open delivery was thereafter demanded from the railway which was refused. All these bales were then kept in the railway platform to be guarded by PWs. 5 and 11, who are the persons who had earlier come to the station to take delivery. Next day i.e. on 8.3.62, the matter was reported to Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railway), where after PW.7 seized some articles from inside the bales. It was then noticed that instead of handloom sarees what was inside the bales were some torn gunny bags, iron patties and wood pieces. Due claim was made with the railway and on their denial a suit for realisation of Rs. 5528.81 was filed. This amount included a sum of Rs. 500.00 towards business loss. The defendants denied their liability, imputed motive to the plaintiff in filing the suit to make illegal gain, and took stand that they would not be liable at all as the loss had not occurred due to any negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or any of its servants.

(3.) 7 issues were framed in the suit and 11 witnesses were examined by the plaintiff in support of its case. Some documents were also exhibited. The principal defendants (hereinafter the defendants) adduced no evidence. After careful analysis of the materials on record the trial court decreed the suit as above.