LAKSHMI NARAIN RAM NARAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, because its claim for compensation for Rs. 13,250, besides interests pendente lite and future and costs, against two Railway administrations and the Union of India was decreed in part for Rs. 200 only with costs against the defendants by an Additional Subordinate Judge of Ranchi.

(2.) On account of the plaintiff, a consignment of two pumping sets in sound and well packed condition was made over at Betul railway station on the Central Railways (defendant No. 2) for carriage and conveyance by itself and the South Eastern Railway (defendant No. 3) to Ranchi to be made over there on the 21st May, 1956, to the plaintiff, which was the consignor. The consignment was, however, never delivered to the consignee, which was the holder of the railway receipt, in due course. Only defendant No. 2 contested the suit, and the other defendants did not appear. Defendant No. 2 submitted that the consignment in question was received at Chakradharpur in due course, and the same was correctly despatched for onward journey. It was unloaded at Rhojudih railway station, but the crates were found unmarked and was unidentified there. Hence, it remained unconnected and was subsequently auction sold publicly at Rs. 200 in accordance with the railway rules. The allegation of the plaintiff that the consignment was not delivered on account of the negligence and misconduct of the railway servants was denied. Further, objection was taken on the ground that notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act was not served and that the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act was not necessary on the facts of the case and that the claim was not barred by limitation. But he granted a decree for Rs. 200 only, as he thought that the plaintiff had failed to prove payment of Rs. 13,250 as the price of the pumping sets. Hence, the appeal by the plaintiff. A cross-objection was filed on behalf of the respondents to the effect that the entire claim ought to nave been refused by the court below, because the suit was not maintainable on account of absence of notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act and the claim was barred by limitation both under Articles 30 and 31 of the Limitation Act.