HARDYAL CHAMAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned sub-Judge, 1st Class, Ludhiana, dated 22nd of May, 1963, dismissing the suit for recovery of Rs. 6042. 33 Paise, by way of the damages and compensation on account of the short delivery of gram despatched from Ludhiana to Jorhat.

(2.) THE plaintiff-firm M/s. Hardial Chaman Lal, Commission Agents and Food Grain dealers, Mandi Fenton Ganj, Jullundur City, brought the present suit against the indian Railways for the recovery of Rs. 6042. 33 Paise as the price of the goods (gram) which were consigned at Ludhiana under R. R. No. 179233 on 20th september, 1961, for delivery at Jorhat out of which only 130 bags were delivered at the destination whereby resulting in the short delivery of 121 bags of gram. The suit relates to the price of these 121 bags of gram.

(3.) IT was alleged by the plaintiff that though the goods were consigned by defendant No. 5 (M/s. Hira Lal Narain Dass) in favour of self, the plaintiff-firm was the owner of the goods because the same had been purchased by it from defendant No. 5. It was further said that defendant No. 5 endorsed the railway receipt in favour of the plaintiff-firm who further said that defendant No. 5 endorsed the railway receipt in favour of the plaintiff-firm who further endorsed the same in favour of M/s. Padma Ram Om Prakash of Jorhat. According to the plaintiff, M/s. Padma Ram Om Prakash were its own agents. The railway receipt was endorsed in favour of M/s. Padma Ram Om Prakash in order to enable them to take delivery on behalf of the plaintiff-firm and the despatched goods always remained the property of the plaintiff-firm. It was alleged that although the plaintiff-firm was the owner of the goods as aforesaid, still M/s. Padma Ram Om prakash issued an authority letter in favour of the plaintiff-firm enabling them to claim the price of the goods which were not delivered. That letter was duly verified and signed by the Stateion Master, Jorhat. Proper service of notices under Section 77 (Amended Section 78-B) of the Indian Railways Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and under Section 80 of the code of Civil Procedure, was also alleged.