UNION OF INDIA Vs. NIVAS MAL BAIROGIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application Under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and is directed against the decision of the learned Munsif of Darbhanga, exercising- small cause court powers, dated 1-12-1950. The learned Small Cause Court Judge has decreed the suit of the opposite party who claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 50/- for what he alleged to be "trouble and inconvenience", in travelling from Darbhanga to Howrah on 19-6-1949, in a second class compartment by the 46 Down train. The defendants were the Union of India and one Sri K.M. Das said to be a travelling ticket examiner on the railway in question. The allegation of the opposite party was that there was great overcrowding which resulted in trouble and inconvenience to him. The defence was a denial of overcrowding, or any consequent inconvenience or damage to the opposite party. On behalf of the Union of India, it was also pleaded that the only duty which the railway owed was the duty of giving reasonable accommodation to the opposite party in the circumstances existing at the time of the contract of carriage, and such reasonable accommodation having been provided, the defendants were not liable for any damages.

(2.) THE learned Small Cause Court Judge negatived the defence pleas and gave a decree to the opposite party. Mr. N.C. Ghosh appearing. for the petitioners has urged the following points. He has firstly contended that the learned Small Cause Court Judge has not given the necessary findings which would justify a decree in favour of the opposite party. He has, secondly, contended that the railway as a carrier of persons owed no other duty to the opposite party except the duty to provide reasonable accommodation in the circumstances then existing, for the journey which the opposite party had to perform. It is submitted that the opposite party failed to prove that such reasonable accommodation had not been given to him; therefore, the learned Small Cause Court Judge was wrong in passing a decree in favour of the opposite" party. Thirdly, it is contended that there is no finding that the opposite party had suffered any injury or damage, and in the absence of such a finding, the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge is erroneous in law.

(3.) FOR the reasons given above, the application is allowed, the decision of the learned Small Cause Court Judge is set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff opposite party is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order for costs and the parties must bear their own costs of the Court below as also of this Court. Imam, C.J.