UNION OF INDIA Vs. KESRI CHAND MANAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs. 6305.62/- against the appellant-defendant. According to plaintiff, the plaintiff booked certain goods for sending by railway transport from Varanasi to Bikaner. The goods were received by the appellant and a due receipt was issued by the appellant-railway to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff did not find the goods at Bikaner, he immediately informed the Commercial Superintendent of the Northern Railway, Bikaner on 16-2-1972 and submitted his claim under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act. The plaintiff also submitted the railway receipt to the appellant-defendant. Despite lodging claim, the amount was not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff-respondent, therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the said amount after serving notice. According to plaintiff since the goods, which were booked by the plaintiff to be delivered at Bikaner was not delivered to the plaintiff, therefore, he is entitled to recover the cost of the goods along with interest from the defendant-appellant.

(3.) The defendant submitted written statement and admitted that the goods were booked for sending to Bikaner by the plaintiff for which a P.W. Bill No. 381780 dated 18-1-72 was given by the defendant to the plaintiff respondent. The defendant-appellant further admitted that plaintiff submitted claim and defendant demanded the receipt dated 18-1-1972, but denied that goods were lost because of the negligence of the railway administration. The defendant-appellant admitted receipt of the notice under Section 80, CPC. However, even after admitting the facts, the defendant-appellant took a plea that the goods booked contained, fancy Saris and, therefore, the plaintiff should have insured the goods or should have declared the value of the goods and since the plaintiff did not got the goods insured nor declared the goods and its value and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any cost of the goods from the defendant-appellant.