UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Vs. RAMESHWARLALL BHAGCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Short though somewhat vexing question that arises for determination in this second appeal filed by the Union of India relates to the interpretation of Sec. 8 of the Indian Contract Act Another consequential question that falls for decision is whether the provisions of that section apply to the facts of this case. The two courts below have concurrently held that Sec. 8 is not attracted to the facts of the case.

(2.) The plaintiffs-respondents M/s Rameshwarlall Bhagchand had imported 210 bags of ground-nuts in 1983 by railway from Risia to Gauhati and when they took delivery of the consignment on 26-7-1963 at the latter station, the consignment was found to be so damaged as not to be fit for human consumption. A certificate to that effect was issued on 26-8-1963 by the Railway officer concerned to the consignees. The dispute about compention having not been immediately setteled the consignees served a notice on the Railway Administration claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 2368.25. The General Manager, N.F. Railway Pandu, sent on 5-5-1964 a cheque in the amount of Rs. 1173.19 to the consignees along with a letter stating that the cheque was being sent in full and final settlement of the claim. The consignees cashed the cheque but subsequntly communicated to the General Manager, by their letter dated 29-7-64, that the cheque received satisfied only a part of the claim made by them and that consequently he (the General Manager) should reopen the case and remit the balance sum of Rs. 1195.06. It was stated further in that letter that if the balance amount was not paid legal steps should be taken to realise the same. The General Manager having failed to make payment of the balance money claimed by the consignees, the latter letter filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1200.00 made on of the balance amount of Rs. 1195.06 and Rs. 4.94 by way of interest.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit primarily on the basis that the cheque of Rs. 1173.19 having been sent on the term that it represented full and final settlement of the claim and the plaintiffs having cashed the cheque, they were not entitled in law to claim any further amount.