SHANKAR NARAYAN Vs. BARSI LIGHT RAILWAY CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a test suit filed by a pleader of Pandharpur to recover Rs. 17-11- 0 by way of damages for discomfort and worry caused to him when he had to travel in a Pilgrim Traffic Vehicle of the Barsi Light Railway Company from Kurduwadi to Pandharpur to attend the Kartiki fair in November 1939. The plaintiff purchased a third class concession ticket from Dhulia to Pandharpur on November 20, 1939, and travelled by the G.I.P. Railway as far as Kurduwadi, and there he had to change over to the Barsi Light Railway; but he found that there was no room in any of the third class compartments and he was asked to sit in a goods wagon described as "Pilgrim Traffic Vehicle". He further found that that vehicle was marked with the words "bags only" and was overcrowded. He then made a complaint to the respective Station Masters at every station on the way as far as Pandharpur and took their signatures on a copy of the complaint which he had preserved for himself. He filed this suit for damages to assert his right to travel by the usual third class compartment.

(2.) The main facts are not in dispute. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had to suffer "much mental and bodily agony, discomfort and inconvenience during his travel from Kurduwadi to Pandharpur due to the over-crowding and due to the carrying of him through the Pilgrim Traffic Vehicle". It held that by selling a third class passenger ticket to the plaintiff the Barsi Light Railway Company, Ltd., entered into a contract with him that it would take him in a third class compartment as far as Pandharpur, and by requiring him to sit in a Pilgrim Traffic Vehicle it had committed a breach of the contract. But instead of awarding the damages demanded by the plaintiff, it awarded to him only the difference between the third class fare between Kurduwadi and Pandharpur and the charge for goods of his weight to be carried in a goods wagon between those two stations. The difference amounted to Rs. 0-7-0 and the plaintiff was awarded that amount together with Rs. 3 as notice charges and 9-annas as interest, total Rs. 5. The plaintiff had also impleaded Government representing the G.I.P. Railway Co., but as that company had nothing to do with the alleged breach of the contract, the decree was passed only against the Barsi Light Railway Co. Ltd. In appeal, the learned District Judge held that there was no breach of contract on the part of the railway company and that the remedy sought by the plaintiff was misconceived. The appeal was, therefore, allowed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs throughout.

(3.) The plaintiff's claim was founded on two grounds, viz. that the railway company had agreed to take him as far as Pandharpur in a compartment which is commonly known as "third class compartment" and which has certain comforts and amenities, and that those comforts and amenities were absent in the Pilgrim Traffic Vehicle in which he had to travel for want of room elsewhere on the train. Section 67 of the Indian Railways Act is a complete answer to this contention. Sub-section (1) of that section says: - Fares shall be deemed to be accepted, and tickets, to be issued, subject to the condition of there being room available in the train for which the tickets are issued.