HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,14,723.62 the plaintiff-company has alleged that a consignment consisting of 22.360 MTS GC Sheets loaded in Wagon No. WR 23556 was consigned by the plaintiff from Rurkella Steel Plant, a station on the South Eastern Railway and was booked under R/R No. 330053 on 9-7-75 to be delivered through the Northern Railway. The railway accepted the said consignment and agreed and undertook to carry through its railway the said consignment and deliver to the plaintiffs at Srinagar Northern Railway, but the said Northern Railway failed to deliver the total contents of the consignment. A notice of claim under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act was served upon the defendant for the payment of the abovesaid amount. The notice was delivered and acknowledged by the defendants vide postal receipts Nos. 119 and 120 dated 24-10-75. By reasons of such non-delivery, the plaintiffs suffered a loss amounting to Rs. 1,14,723.62. It has been alleged that the said loss and damage was caused due to the negligence of the Railway Administration since the goods were throughout in the possession of the defendants from the time of booking. In spite of repeated demands and requests made in this behalf the defdts. failed to make the compensation for nondelivery of the above mentioned goods. A notice Under Section 80 C. P. C. dated 3-1-76 was served on the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and Chief Commercial Supdt. (Claims) South Eastern Railway Calcutta and M/s. ND Radha Krishen & Co. Northern Railway Out-Agents, Srinagar. The defendants, however, failed to make the payment and, therefore, the present suit,

(2.) In their written statement the defendants have stated that the goods were loaded inside the factory siding without being supervised by Railway staff. The consignment, however, was delivered to the consignee under clear receipt at the destination without any shortage being found therein at that time. It has been denied by the defendants that any valid and legal notice has been served on the defdts. as alleged. The defendants have besides other objections raised two objections which are to the effect that the suit of the plaintiff was hopelessly barred by time, and secondly, that the suit is also barred by Section 78 (b) of the Indian Railways Act.

(3.) The following issues were framed on 21-9-79