UNION OF INDIA Vs. NATHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the Union of India (Railways) and is directed against an appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Ajmer, dated 22. 2. 60, by which the learned Judge in reversing the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated 28. 10. 58 decreed an amount of Rs. 1700/-in favour of the respondent. The appeal raises the question about the mode of proving negligence or misconduct in a suit for damages based on short delivery of a consignment.

(2.) ON 14. 4. 51, one Fakruddin & Co. consigned scrap iron weighing 571 mds. 28 seers from Bombay Central, a station on the Western Railway (Broad guage) to Ajmer, a station on the metre-guage of the Western Railway, under a railway receipt. Nathilal, who was an endorsee of this railway receipt, took delivery of the part of the consignment at Ajmer. He received in all 386 maunds, 32 seers scrap iron. It was averred by him that in ordinary course of business the entire consignment should have been delivered to the plaintiff at Ajmer within 10 or 12 days of its booking. ON account of the late delivery, it was alleged by the plaintiff, he suffered a loss of Rs. 200/ -. He also claimed the value of the part of the consignment which remained undelivered. In all he claimed Rs. 2,777/4/9 from the Railway. The stand taken by the Railway was that the consignor loaded the goods without anybody supervising the same on behalf of the Railways and the goods were consigned on the owner's risk and whatever goods were consigned by the consignor were delivered to the plaintiff at Ajmer on a clear receipt. It was denied by the defendant Railway that there was any negligence or misconduct on its part as could entitle the plaintiff to claim the damages.

(3.) I may now briefly refer to some of the cases which reinforce my conclusions.