UNION OF INDIA Vs. TEXTILE TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, the Union of India as owner of the North Eastern Railway (formerly O. and T. Railway), Eastern Railway (formerly E. I. Railway), Central Railway (formerly G. I. P. Railway) and Western Railway (formerly B. B. and C. I. Railway) Administrations, is the appellant. The plaintiff, a firm known as Textile-Trading Company carrying on business of cloth at Birganj, Post Office Raxual, is the respondent. The plaintiff had brought a suit for damages on account of non-delivery of a part of the consignment by the defendant who had acted as a carrier for the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff's case , shortly put, is that it carries on cloth business in Birganj in the name of Textile Trading Company and that it had purchased sixty-seven bales of cotton goods from Babana Trading Company Limited, Bombay and entrusted the same with the defendant to be delivered to the plaintiff at Raxaul, On 15-8-1950, only 64 bales out of the 67 bales of cotton goods were delivered to the plaintiff which was granted a certificate of shortage of three bales of cloth which could not be delivered to it. The plaintiff preferred a claim demanding a sum of Rs. 2,824 annas 13 and 6 pies as damages for non-delivery of the three bales of cotton goods. The defendant, however, assured the plaintiff that the matter was being investigated and asked for the invoice. The plaintiff was kept in suspense till 9-7-1951 when defendant No. 1 finally refused to entertain the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, accordingly, on receipt of the letter of refusal, sent a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As the defendant did not pay the claim of the plaintiff in spite of this notice, the plaintiff brought the present suit against the defendant,

(3.) The case of the defendant, in the main, Is that the plaintiff has no right to sue and the suit is not maintainable, that the Suit is barred by limitation, that the bales were lost in running train theft and hence the plaintiff was not entitled to any damage and that the notices under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure and Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act were defective and not valid.