UNION OF INDIA Vs. BISHWANATH AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the defendant. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,051/9/9 as compensation for the loss and destruction of certain goods during transit in the railway. The plaintiff's case was that on 9-4-1951, a consignment of 308 tins of Vansapati had been hooked from Rishra Mills Siding to be delivered to the plaintiffs at Giridih. When in due course the delivery of the tins was taken on 18-4-1951 at Giridih Railway Station, it was found that 51 out of 308 tins had been badly damaged and that the contents of the damaged tins were less than what they had originally contained. Each tin originally contained 19i seers of Vanaspati. At the time of taking of delivery the total contents of the 51 damaged tins weighed only 12 Mds, 9 seers and 8 chataks. Thus there was a shortage of 11 mds., 2 seers and 4 chataks. A shortage certificate to this effect had been granted to the plaintiff at Giridih Railway Station at the time of taking of delivery. The plaintiff thereafter submitted a written claim demanding compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,051/9/9 as being the price, of Vanaspati lost in the transit. The plaintiff's claim having been refused, the present suit was instituted in due course.

(2.) The defendant contended that the consignment had not been packed according to the Tariff rules and that the loss was due to leakage as a result of improper packing and not due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or its servants. It was also contended that the consignment was booked at owner's risk rate and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation. The defendant had also raised some other pleas but those contentions do not require any further consideration.

(3.) It was held by the learned Munsif who tried the suit that the loss suffered by the plaintiff was due to negligence of the Railway administration and its servants and that therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover compensation as claimed by him. The suit having been decreed fully, the defendant went up in appeal to the court of appeal below. The decree of the first court for recovery of Rs. 1,051/9/9 was affirmed. The decree of the learned Munsif was modified to the extent that interest pendente lite and future interest were refused to the plaintiff.