SHAH NEMJI CHITARMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of damages for short delivery and damage to goods in transit over railway.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this appeal are that M/s. Mohanlal Hargovind sent 20 crates of Bidies on February 8, 1962 from Tumsar Road Railway Station for delivery to M/s. Chandulal Jagjiwandas at Baran Railway Station. THE railway receipt in respect of the aforesaid consignment of Bidies in which Chandulal Jagjiwandas was shown as the consignee, was endorsed by the consignee in the name of Shah Nemji Chitarmal. Whan M/s. Shah Nemji Chitarmal took delivery of the goods at Baran Railway Station, one crate of Bidies was found missing while the remaining crates were found in damaged condition. THE plaintiff, M/s. Shah Nemji Chitarmal, took delivery of 19 crates of Bidies and the loss was assessed by the Station Master, Baran at the time of delivery.

(3.) THEREAFTER in Dhian Singh Sobha Singh vs. U. O. I. (5) their Lordships of the Supreme Court explained the legal position by observing that what the Privy Council had laid down in Bhag Chand's case (supra) did not mean that the terms of the notice should be scrutinised in a pedantic manner or in the manner completely divorced from common sense. Their Lordships placed reliance upon the observations of Pollock C. B. in Jones vs. Nicholls (6) to the effect that "we must import a little common sense into notices of this kind. "