CHHOTEY LAL PANNA LAL Vs. RKRAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes dismissing the plaintiff's claim for refund of an excess amount charged by the railway company. A consignment of planks was dispatched from Shah-jahanpur which is on the R.K.R. line to Agra on the B.B. & C.I. Railway line under several receipts. For the sake of convenience we may take up one receipt No. 74156, by way of illustration. The weight charged was 272 maunds, which was obviously the carrying capacity of the whole wagon and the rate at which the freight was charged was As. 2-9. Apparently the consignment was not weighed at the receiving station but was weighed at Pilibhit and again at Agra and the actual weight was noted at one of these two stations. The railway authority at Agra demanded freight at the rate of Rs. 4-8 per maund on the ground that there had been an undercharge. The plaintiff paid the amount under protest. Subsequently he was given a refund of a small amount, but not the whole of the excess amount charged. Accordingly he brought the suit to recover Rs. 470 which he was compelled to pay in addition to what had been charged at Shahjahanpur. It may also be noted that the receipt granted to the consignor was on Risk-Note Form B and the consignment was dispatched at owner's risk. Part of the journey was across the B.B. & C.I. Railway on which planks can be carried both at owner's risk and at risk of the railway company. There was no demand made by the railway for any excess amount as regards the part of the journey on the B.B. & C.I. Railway. There is therefore no dispute about if; before us.

(2.) According to the Goods Tariff for the R.K.R. Railway, planks are included under the classification "wrought timber" and not "unwrought timber." There is also no doubt that for wrought timber there is only one class of rate fixed, namely, those at the company's risk, and none at the owner's risk. There is also no doubt that the booking clerk at Shahjahanpur charged the plaintiff at the rate of Re. 0-2- 9 which was not the rate notified in the tariff for wrought timber and the consignor handed over the goods to the company at owner's risk. The contention on behalf of the railway company is that there being only one rate for wrought timber and no separate rate for unwrought timber, the clerk had no authority to charge at a rate lower than Re. 0-4-8 fixed for wrought timber, he had no right to accept goods at the lower rate merely on the ground that they were understood to be carried at owner's risk; and that as a mistake was made by the clerk concerned the company is entitled to recover the full amount authorized. On the other hand the learned advocate for the applicant contends that the company had originally charged a lower rate at owner's risk and is therefore not entitled to alter the basis of that rate and charge on the supposition that the goods were to be carried at the risk of the company and therefore the amount charged was at the wagon rate and the company cannot alter the basis of the contract by demanding freight at the maund rate. It was laid down by the Pull Bench in the case of Chunni Lal V/s. The Nizam's Guaranteed State Ry. Co. Ltd. [1907] 29 All. 228 that a railway company is not entitled to alter the basis of the contract by demanding freight calculated per maund when the goods bad been accepted for carriage at the wagon rate for the whole distance.

(3.) Apparently in that case the rate originally charged was Rs. 270 per wagon load for the whole distance. This case has naturally been followed by this Court in subsequent cases of Allaudin V/s. G.I.P. Ry. Co. [1916] 34 I.C. 104 and Gulab Dei v. G.I.P. Ry. . On behalf of the railway company it is however pointed out that in the present case the clerk had not charged at the wagon rate, i.e., so much per wagon for the entire distance, but that the charge was so much per maund per mile. Oar attention has been drawn to Rule 16 (General Rules, 1926) under which the company is entitled to have the goods re-weighed and to charge for the actual weight even though it be different from the computed rates. It is also pointed out that if there had been goods of mixed quality, namely, both wrought and unwrought timber, the company was entitled to charge at the highest class of rate for the entire weight, under Rule. 77 (General Rules, 1926). It is therefore argued that the mistake was due to a wrong classification of the goods on the part of the clerk concerned. It is suggested that the goods being planks were admittedly wrought timber, but the clerk committed a mistake in supposing that they were not wrought timber and did not charge at Re. 0-4-8 the rate for wrought timber. But it has to be conceded that there was no rate like Re. 0- 2-9 for unwrought timber at all. In our opinion the mistake was not merely one of a wrong classification, and even if it have been such a mistake it would not have helped the company in this particular case.