SARJUG PRASAD ISHWAR PURBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff-firm. It arises out of a suit for recovery of damages against Union of India representing the North-eastern Railway and the Eastern Railway.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff-firm, shortly stated, is that on the 6th November 1954, they had booked 178 bags of resultant atta from Darbhanga Railway Station for Howrah. The consignment reached. Howrah on the 14th November 1954, when the plaintiff-firm presented the railway receipt before the Goods Accountant at. Howrah and demanded the delivery of the consignment. They were, however, told to get the railway receipt countersigned by the Director of Procurement and Supply, Government of West Bengal, Calcutta, otherwise the delivery could not be given. Then it is alleged, they approached the Director of Procurement and Supply in the matter, but their attempts failed. On the 2n3 April 1955, however, the said Director informed them by wire that the ban on the movement of wheat products had been lifted. They did not take delivery as the goods had become unfit for human consumption, and, after serving usual notices on the Railway Administrations, they instituted the present suit on the 22nd September 1955, alleging that the commodity in question had deteriorated due to the negligence of the Railway Administration causing loss to them.

(3.) The defence, amongst other, was that the atta in question was inherently bad and that the same had lost its quality due to the plaintiff-firm not taking delivery at the proper time, and that there was no negligence on the part of the Railway Administrations.