MUNNA LAL Vs. EAST INDIAN RAILWAY COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought is 1918 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra by the proprietor of a firm carrying on business at Agra against the East Indian Railway Company on the following allegations: (1) that the plaintiff had had consigned to him 101 bales of strawboard from Howrah to Agra City in two waggons one containing 53 bales weighing 362 maunds 1 seer, and the other containing 48 bales weighing 315 maunds 30 seers by the defendant Company's line. (2) That the consignment arrived on 28 May 1918 and 1 June 1918. (3) That the 48 bales were delivered in good condition but that the consignment of 53 bales was carelessly unloaded with the result that damage was done to a certain number of bales. (4) That the plaintiff having sold 50 bales to a firm in Delhi to booked to Delhi the 53 bales which had been carelessly unloaded on a forwarding note which was accepted by the Station Master at Agra. (5) That at first there was a refusal to forward but that on the 19 July 1918, 42 bales weighing 80 maunds 11 seers were actually booked to Delhi. (6) That when these 42 bales were booked the plaintiff discovered that 11 bales which had been concealed by the remainder of the consignment had become spoilt.

(2.) On these allegations the plaintiff claimed damages against the Railway Company. The Railway Company in their written statement suggested that the damage if any had been done before the goods reached Agra. They denied ever having accepted liability in respect of any portion of the consignment after it had reached Agra. Their case was that the plaintiff had taken away 48 bales on their arrival in Agra (there the plaintiff agreed) and that the remaining 53 bales had been offered to them to book to Delhi, but that they had refused to accept the offer inasmuch as at that time booking to Delhi was suspended owing to the exigencies of Military Service. The defence continued that the plaintiff in spite of their reply had refused to remove the 53 bales, and had left them on the Railway premises at his own risk, that subsequently 42 bales had been booked by them to Delhi but that no responsibility had been incurred in respect of the 11 bales. The Company claimed wharfage against the plaintiff in respect of the time that the bales had remained on their premises.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. His decree was affirmed by the learned District Judge. The present appeal is filed here.