GAJANAND RAJGORIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The facts so far as they are relevant at the present stage are not seriously in dispute and may be stated very briefly. The petitioners were the plaintiffs. A consignment of 200 bags of sugar was booked from a station called Bagaha on the railway section, known then as the O. T. Railway for another station called Katrasgarh on the E. I. Railway section on 23-3-1950 under railway receipt No. 61756. When the consignment reached Katrasgarh, 8 bags of sugar were found out and damaged. Those 8 bags were reweighed and there was a shortage of 11 maunds and 1 seer of sugar. The petitioners took delivery of the 200 bags of sugar on 5-4-1950 under a qualified receipt. Thereafter, the petitioners wrote to the Chief Commercial Manager, East Indian Railway, in Calcutta and received a reply dated 8-6-1950. In this reply, the Chief Commercial Manager stated that as there was no proof of misconduct on the part of the railway administration or its servants, he was unable to accept liability for the shortage and he further expressed inability to entertain any claim to compensation. The petitioners then served a notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. and instituted a suit on 7-6-1951, out of which the present application in revision has arisen.

(2.) The defendant, opposite party before us, raised several pleas, and two points arose for consideration by the learned Small Cause Court Judge. The first point was if the shortage of sugar was due to misconduct or negligence on the part of the railway and the second question was one of limitation. On the first question, the learned Small Cause Court Judge found in favour of the present petitioners and held that the loss or shortage of sugar was due to the misconduct and negligence of the railway administration. On the second question, he held against the present petitioners. The learned Small Cause Court Judge held that Article 30, Limitation Act applied and, inasmuch as the suit had been brought beyond the period of limitation contemplated by Article 30, the claim was barred by time.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before us that the proper article which should apply in the present case is Article 31. He has argued that short delivery of goods does not amount to loss of goods, and the loss or injury referred to in Article 30 is loss or injury to the goods and not loss or injury to the consignee; therefore, it cannot be said that a case of short delivery falls under Article 30 on the ground that it amounts to loss to the consignee to the extent of the goods short delivered.- Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court, --- 'B. & N. W. Ry. Co. Ltd. v. Rameshwar Singh', AIR 1933 Pat 45 (A). Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has placed reliance on certain other decisions oil this court, -- Rameshwar Das Mali Ram v. East Indian Rly Co. Ltd.', AIR 1923 Pat 298 (B), and -- 'Gopi Ram Gouri Shanker v. G. I. P. Ry. Co.', AIR 1927 Pat 335 (C), and has contended that, in the circumstances of this case, short delivery was really due to loss of goods and the proper article applicable is Article 30 of Schedule I to the Limitation Act. I apprehend that short delivery may, in certain circumstances, be due to loss of part of the goods; in certain other circumstances, short delivery may be due to non-delivery of part of goods, particularly when the consignment consists of several units and the units are delivered piecemeal. Article 30 relates to a claim of compensation against a carrier for losing or injuring goods. Article 31 relates to a claim of compensation against a carrier for non-delivery of, or delay in delivering, goods. Whether the one or the other article should apply would depend on the circumstances of each case, and I do not think that it can be laid down as a rule of law that every case of short delivery of goods must come within Article 30 or within Article 31. As I have already said, whether Article 30 or Article 31 will apply will depend on the facts of each case.