LADURAM HIRALAL Vs. SECYOF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a Rule issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment dated 25 July 1933 and the amended judgment dated 26 August 1933 in the Small Cause Court suit of the Sealdah Court as complained of in the petition should not be modified or why such other or further order should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper. Upon hearing the learned advocates on both sides and upon consideration of the record the facts appear to be as follows: On 13 October 1931 at Kalukhali the plaintiff offered to the Railway Station 63 bales of jute for delivery at Cossipore Road Station near Calcutta, The officers of the Railway found that of these 63 bales, 31 bales were jute of good quality but 32 bales consisted of damaged jute which they declined to book as ordinary goods. They were booked under Risk Note A, being in bad condition, liable to damage, leakage or wastage in transit. The 63 bales however were all put into the same waggon and they arrived in the same waggon at Cossipore on 15 October and the plaintiffs sent their carters, and on the 16th took delivery of 32 bales which were said to be in bad condition and on a subsequent date they sent their men for the 31 bales in good condition. Then it was found that the 31 bales left in the waggon were all in bad condition. Upon this the plaintiffs claimed damages from the Railway Company and the Railway Company inter alia pleaded that the plaintiffs had committed a fraud on the Railway by taking away the good bales on the 16 leaving the damaged bales for which afterwards they claimed damages.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit under the Small Cause Court procedure found upon consideration of the oral evidence that he was not satisfied that any fraud was committed by the plaintiffs party. It has been urged by Dr. Basak on behalf of the Railway Administration that apart from the oral evidence the circumstances disclose a state of affairs from which one may reasonably conclude that a fraud was committed. The damaged as well as the good bales were put in the same compartment and they arrived in the same compartment at Cossipore and the plaintiffs sent their carters first of all to take delivery of damaged goods omitting to take delivery of the good bales, but leaving them to be taken delivery of on a subsequent date, although they had been booked at the same date and arrived in the same waggon on the same day at Cossipore. The taking of the 32 alleged damaged bales away before claiming the 31 alleged good bales raises a strong presumption, that with or without the connivance of the subordinate Railway officers at Cossipore the 32 bales which were taken away included all the good bales and afterwards a false claim was lodged claiming that the Railway Company has caused damage in transit to the 31 good bales of jute. The very fact that the transit was completed, in the course of two days would raise a presumption against such damage having occurred. However as there is no cross objection on behalf of the respondent nothing more need be said on this point.

(3.) The Court below after weighing the evidence adduced on the point and with reference to a rate list, Ex. J, filed on the defendant's part considered that the reasonable price might be assessed at Rs. 6 per bale. Calculating at this basis he allowed a decree for Rs. 186. This was on 25 July 1933. Subsequently the plaintiffs filed a written petition Under Section 151, Civil P. C, claiming that the trial Court had made a manifest error in thinking that each bale consisted of two maunds whereas each bale consisted of 3? maunds. The Court accepted the petition and increased the decree to Rs. 325-8-0. In this Court it is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs first that the Court below was wrong to take into account the rates stated in the document Ex. J, filed by the defence, and secondly that the Court committed an error of law in awarding on the basis of the price at the place of booking whereas the damages ought to have been claimed on the basis of the prior of jute at the destination, namely in Calcutta.