FIRM MAHADEOLAL BHAGIRATHMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A consignment of 660 tins of mustard oil was booked from Rohtak railway station, on the lines of the Northern Railway, to Tatanagar, a station under the South Eastern Railway Administration. At the time of delivery of the consignment to the plaintiff, according to its case, 15 tins were found damaged and contents removed. A short delivery certificate was granted by the goods supervisor and 231 kilograms of mustard oil found short. The plaintiff firm instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 977.75 Paise as compensation for the loss of the mustard oil weighing 231 kilograms. According to its case, the loss was caused due to the negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or its servants. This charge was refuted in the written statement and it was further pleaded that the goods were defectively packed and, therefore, the Railway Administration was not liable for the loss of a part of the goods.

(2.) The trial court found that the tins were cut and the contents had been pilfered in transit. Since the Railway had failed to disclose as to how the consignment was dealt with throughout the time it was in its possession or control, negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or of any of its servants could fairly be inferred for the said failure on the part of the Railway Administration. It further held that the case is not covered by Section 77C of the Indian Railways Act 1890 (hereinafter called the Act).

(3.) On appeal by the Union of India, at owner of the Railway Administrations; the lower appellate court has taken a different view It has held that a part of the contents of 15 tins was lost due to leakage in the tins and leakage was caused due to bad soldering at their bottom. It has further held that the case was covered by Section 77C of the Act. In that view of the matter, the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff has been set aside by the lower appellate court. The plaintiff firm has filed this application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the provision of law contained in Section 102 of the Code.