G. I. P. RAILWAY COMPANY Vs. MAHADEO BARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is an application by the defendant G.I.P. Railway Company for revision of the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Nagpur, dated the 7th February 1925 granting a decree for Rs. 21-10-0 in favour of the non-applicant Mahadeo against the said railway company. On the 11th May 1924, the plaintiff, with some hi other people who constituted a marriage party, had booked from Dhamangaon railway station to Nagpur. On arrival at the latter station one of his party was sent out with some 28 tickets and their holders to arrange for tongas in the station yard. The plaintiff meanwhile with six others came shortly afterwards to the gate, but he found to his utter surprise that he had not got the seven tickets in question. He accordingly was charged with excess fare and penalty amounting to Rs. 21-10-0, and obtained a receipt therefor.

(2.) PLAINTIFF 's case further was that, he no sooner than came out into the station yard on enquiry from his companions, he found the missing tickets and took them back to the ticket collector. The ticket collector, however, referred him to the proper authorities for a refund. Various applications therefor to the higher railway authorities were rejected.

(3.) IT is, first of all, necessary to determine whether the plaintiff, a few minutes later, returned with the missing tickets and offered them to the ticket collector as alleged. The plaintiff has given prima; facie satisfactory evidence on the point and he is confirmed so far by the evidence of P.W. 2, Balkrishna, his companion. He (P.W. 2) had the tickets in his possession and he had gone in the station yard to procure tongas. Apart from letters' from the Chief Traffic Manager and the like containing a denial that the ticket collector was shortly afterwards shown the misssing tickets by the plaintiff-non-applicant, the defendant railway company produced no evidence whatever on the point. It is obvious that the fact whether plaintiff did or did not produce the tickets within a few minutes after the original episode, may be an important one. On the question of fact involved, therefore, it is perfectly clear that the oral evidence of plaintiff and Balkrishna, in the absence of any rebutting evidence, establishes the fact that, some ten minutes after he had had to pay the penalties, etc., he returned with the tickets to the ticket collector, who in his turn referred the plaintiff to higher authorities for a refund.