SURAJMAL JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He had brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 3,270-5-0 (sic) made up of Rs. 3,038-13-3, being the price of 270 bags of salt, Rs. 167-5-6, being the difference in the rate of salt at the time of booking and the rate at the time of the suit and Rs. 64-1-0, being the loss of profit by way of commission. THE claim was based on non-delivery of the goods to the plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case is that he is the owner of a private firm carrying on business at Sariya, police station Bagodar, district Hazaribagh in the name and style of Surajmal Mahabir Prasad. On 11-8-1947 the consignment in question, containing 270 bags of salt, was booked at Lunli (Lanndhi) railway station in West Punjab covered by forwarding note No. 468 of that date, and booked in Wagon No. 31709 B.B. from the said station on the North Western Railway for Hazaribagh Road on the then East Indian Railway via Gaziabad. THE consignment bore invoice No. 8 covered by R/R No. 638843 in Risk Note Form 'A'. THE plaintiff claims that he is the holder in due course of the railway receipt and otherwise beneficially entitled to the goods consigned. THE consignment was not delivered to the plaintiff. It is said that ever since 3-11-1947, the plaintiff had been sending claim to the railway authorities, but without any effect. THE plaintiff sent notices under Section 80, Civil P. C. on 30-1-1948, notices, Exts. 4 (b), 4 (c) & 4 (d) were sent; Ex. 4(b) was sent to the General Manager East Indian Railway, Calcutta; Ex. 4 (c) was sent to the General Manager or Administration Officer, Eastern Punjab Railway (late North Western Railway) Delhi; and Ex. 4 (d) wss sent to the Secretary to the Governor-General in Council (Railway Department) the Dominion of India, New Delhi. All these notices were sent on behalf of the firm Surajmal Mahabir Prasad, the consignee under the railway receipt, but they were signed by Surajmal Jain of Katwa, district Burdwan, in West Bengal, and the claim was made to the tune of Rs. 3,526-14-0. It has to be remembered that Section 80, Civil P. C. was amended and the amendment took effect from February 1948 (Act 6 of 1948), which enjoined that notices had to be given to "in the case of a suit against the Central GOVernment where it relates to a railway, the General Manager of that railway". After the amendment another notice Ex. 4(a) was given to the General Manager East Indian Railway enclosing therewith a copy of the draft plaint. This notice was signed by Surajmai Jain on behalf of the firm Surajmai Mahabir Prasad of Katwa. THE Dominion of India, as owner on behalf of the East India Railway, filed a written statement on 5-4-1949 and the defence taken was that the suit was barred by limitation and was not maintainable. It was also stated that, as the contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the North Western Railway, the plaintiff should have claimed compensation from the North Western Railway authorities. Objection was also taken regarding the service of notices under Section 77, Indian Railways Act and Section 80, Civil P. C., and it was alleged that these notices were invalid, improper and illegal. On 15-12-1949 an additional written statement was filed by the Dominion of India contending that the consignment was loaded and despatched from Landhi station of the North Western Railway in Pakistan, a foreign State, in Wagon No. 31709 and that it never reached the destination nor was it received by the Eastern Punjab or the East Indian Railway administration. THE defendant alleged that they believed that the wagon conveying the consignment in suit fell a prey to the violence and frenzy of the riotous mob and subjected to loot and destruction and lost during the last serious disturbances, which broke out in the Punjab in 1947, and these circumstances being beyond the control of the railway administration, the defendant could not be held responsible for the loss.

(3.) AS will appear from the findings arrived at by the Courts below, the defences raised were simply extravagant and false. . I had thought that police bodies and specially the public utility services, like the railways should act fairly at all times, and, unlike ordinary litigants they must adhere to truth despite the consequences so that they do not shake the public confidence reposed in them. The lawyers engaged on behalf of such public bodies should realise the position of their clients and refrain from raising defences which are found to be false even upon the evidence in the possession of such public bodies. I like to quote some of the observations made by the Courts below to show how extravagant were the defences made by the defendants having absolutely no relation to truth. The learned Munsif has observed: "The case Of the defendants in the written statement is that neither E.I.R. nor the E.P. Ey: over received this wagon from the N. W. R. and it was believed that this wagon fell a prey to the mob violence and frenzy of the Punjab riots of the year 1947, If it was really, so, the matter would have ended there if the Railways would have proved that in fact this wagon was looted or was not received from the N.W.F. Unfortunately however after the Railways began evidence the existence of some telegrams came to light which were marked as exhibits. On behalf of the plaintiffs (Vide Ex. 3 series) and these telegrams gp to show that in fact the suit consignment did arrive and was duly received by the Eastern Punjab Ry. The whole complexion of the case was therefore changed thereby and the defence of the Ry. became that in fact the wagon was received with incorrect label and that the label showed that the wagon was meant for Hazrat Nizamuddin Ry. station on the E. P. Ry. near Delhi and that the wagon was diverted to that station. What happened to that wagon however was not disclosed."