UNION OF INDIA Vs. JUTHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India, as owner of the Eastern Railway Administration, has preferred this application under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act against the decision of the learned Small Cause Court Judge, Sitamarhi, awarding to the plaintiffs (Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2) a decree against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 116.56 in S.C.C. Suit No. 76/212 of 1962. The relevant facts are as follows.

(2.) A consignment of three tins of ghee was booked by the plaintiffs at Bairgania station on the North Eastern Railway for being carried to Sitarampur station on the Eastern Railway. At Sitarampur, only two of the tins were delivered to the plaintiffs' customer. Accordingly, the plaintiffs made a complaint to the authorities of the Eastern Railway about non-delivery of the third tin in a letter, Ext. 3 (f) dated the 12th September, 1961, addressed to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway. On the 22nd December, 1961, the Chief Commercial Superintendent wrote to the plaintiffs that the matter was being enquired into and that they should contact the Claims Inspector at Asansol and take delivery of one tin upon valuation, which was lying at Sitarampur Thereupon the plaintiffs sent a letter Ext. 8 (c) dated the 12th January, 1962, to the Claims Inspector, Asansol, saying that the tin lying at Sitarampur was not the tin of the plaintiffs since it did not bear the railway mark or the private mark of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further mentioned in the letter Ext. 3 (c) that arrangement should be made for making delivery of the correct tin or in the alternative, the price of the article might he paid to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not receive any reply from the Claims Inspector, Asansol, but the Chief Commercial Superintendent wrote a letter Ext. 3 (b) dated 5-2-1962 advising the plaintiffs to take deliver of the crate lying undelivered at Sitarampur and to submit an amended claim. In reply, the plaintiffs wrote a letter Ext 3 (g) dated 2-3-1962 saying that the Traffic Inspector should be directed to make open delivery of the tin to the plaintiffs. This, however, was not done, and, ultimately, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit after serving a notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act upon the Eastern Railwav Administration as also a notice upon the said Railway Administration under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was, however, instituted not only against the Eastern Railway Administration, but also against the North Eastern Railway Administration. The total claim in the suit as laid at Rs. 146.20 as detailed below:--

(3.) The defendants denied the plaintiffs' claim and assessed that they were not entitled to any decree substantially for the reason that they had themselves failed to take delivery of the third tin which was lying at Sitarampur, Another substantial defence taken was that the suit was barred by limitation.