ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, has been filed by the plaintiff. Messrs Rohtas Industries Limited, against the order of the Small Causes Court Judge, Sasaram, in S. C. C. Suit No, 193/ 230 of 1970.

(2.) The petitioner had instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 451.79 on the following allegation. A consignment of gypsum, contained in two wagons, was despatched from Jamsar to be carried to Dalmianagar. The railwav receipt was duly endorsed by the consignor to the plaintiff-petitioner. The title to the goods, therefore, passed from the consignor to the consignee and the petitioner claimed to have become the owner of the consignment. It was further alleged that in spite of the demands made and the notices given to the defendant opposite party, no delivery was made. Such a nondelivery had been occasioned on account of the wilful negligence and misconduct on the part of the railwav administration. The plaintiff as owner of the consignment, being the endorsee of the railway receipt and owner of the Bijak, has suffered the loss of the amount in regard to which the suit had been filed. It was further asserted the notices had been duly served under Section 78-B of the Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The Union of India, through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, put in a defence to the effect that the suit was not maintainable, the petitioner having no cause of action. The main defence was that the title to the goods in question had not passed on to the petitioner as a consignee or even as an endorsee of the railway receipt, the title to the goods in question had not passed to the plaintiff, whereby any right to sue could have accrued to it. It was also asserted that the non-delivery complained of was adjusted on the 15th August 1967, when delivery of wagon No. E. R. 83112 was given to the petitioner. The railway administration had not been guilty of any wilful negligence or misconduct, and that no notice had been served in accordance with law. as required by Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.