HARAKCHAND BHATEY Vs. G. I. P. RAILWAY COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE firm of Velsi Karsonji of Bombay consigned to the plaintiff's firm known as Harakchand Hemchand of Akola 12 bags of wet betel-nuts known as Calcutta supari from Wadi Bunder on 24-2-25 under a to-pay consignment note (Exhibit D-1) accompanied by a risk-note in form A. Exhibit D-1 shows the. weight as 23 maunds and Rs. 28-6 as the amount of freight. It-reached Akola on 2-3-25. The consignee received a bijak (Exhibit P-13) from the Bombay firm which showed the weight of the twelve packages to be less than 23 maunds. Plaintiff's son Mohanlal (P. W. 1) went to the Akola railway station to take delivery on the 2nd March 1925; in view of the discrepancy he naturally requested the Goods Clerk to reweigh the goods before effecting delivery, but the latter declined to comply with the request. The consignee refused to surrender the railway receipt and take delivery. The question therefore is whether the Bail-way Company's servants were under any-legal liability to reweigh the consignment and to allow or make any note in the railway book about the same. Each party blames the other as being in the wrong. The goods thus remained in the custody of the Railway Company from. 2-3-25 until 3-4-25 when the delivery was given as per Exhibit P-9, whereon P. W. 1 made the following endorsement. Bags reserved in tact reweighed maunds 15 sears 10 only against Invoice 23 maunds on 3-4-25. Mohanlal, for Harakchand Hemchand.

(2.) DURING this interval the goods deteriorated. Plaintiff therefore sues the Company for Rs. 403 on account of damages.

(3.) THE main question for trial was whether the plaintiff or the defendant was in the right. The Judge of the Small Cause Court, Akola, thinking the plaintiff to be in the wrong in refusing to take delivery on 2-3-25, and that Risk Note A exonerated the Company from liability, dismissed the suit. He, however, found that some damage was suffered and the goods had deteriorated; but held that plaintiff's refusal was wrongful and as there was no sufficient evidence to base any estimate of the damage >he left it unestimated. In depriving the Company of its costs he however observed that the Company had invited this suit by non-compliance with the plaintiff's simple request for reweighment and taking a note of the result in a delivery book or elswhere which, could and should have been done without any trouble to the defendant's servants at Akola.