TARABCHAND Vs. MADRAS AND SOUTHERN MAHRATTA RAILWAY COLIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the reference is the consignor of goods by the Madras Railway Company to a consignee at Bangalore. The goods were not delivered and there seems to have been a certain amount of correspondence and inquiry after them by plaintiff. But it came to nothing: apparently because it is common ground that the goods had not on them his correct address and that he stated thestation, at which he booked them, incorrectly. It has further been found that in the end the goods, which we re in the Railway Company's possession, were sold in the exercise of their right under Section 56 of the Indian Railways Act. The plaintiff is now suing to recover the surplus proceeds of that sale, which in the words of the section, the Railway Company is bound to render to the person entitled.

(2.) We are asked to decide what is the article of schedule 1 of the Limitation Act applicable to this suit. The plaintiff contends, and two learned Judges of the Small Cause Court have held, that article is No. 62 - "For money payable by the defendant fb the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the PLalntiff's use." On the other hand, as one learned Judge has held, the Railway Company contends for the application either of Art. 30 or 31, the two articles dealing with suits against a carrier. Art. 30 may at once be dismissed from consideration because there is no question in the present case of loss or injury to goods. We therefore have to decide between Articles 31 and 62.

(3.) It is not disputed that Art. 62 would apply in terms to the sale proceeds. The argument of Mr. R.N. Aiyangar on behalf of the Company is however that plaintiff, having a right of suit for compensation for non delivery of the goods, must be supposed to be now suing to enforce that right and that Art. 31 is applicable. Mr. Aiyangar has relied strongly on the fact that Section 56 of the Indian Railways Act, is contained in Chapter VI thereof, dealing with the working of Railways/whereas the responsibility of Railway Companies is dealt with in Chapter VII, and he has referred to the statement of His Lordship the Chief Justice in M. and S.M. Ry. Cy., Ltd. V/s. Haridos Banmali Doss (1919) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 871 at p. 877, 35 M.L.J. 35 that Chapter VII must be taken, and was intended to cover the whole liability of the Railway Company including among other things the responsibility of the Railway Company for misdelivery by whatever reason caused. It is sufficient to observe that Section 56(2) and the procedure authorised therein were not in question in that case and there is no reason for assuming that it was present to the mind of his Lordship or that, if it had been brought to his notice, be would have used the same expressions.