B N W RAILWAY Vs. BAIJ NATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the B.N.-W. Ry. Co., arising out of a suit brought for damages by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs case was that they had come to Deoria station to celebrate the marriage of a relation and for their return journey required a reserved third class bogie for the marriage party from Deoria to Cawnpore. The railway company agreed to supply the reserved accommodation required provided it was engaged from Bhatni. They then went on to allege that as the arrangement of reserved accommodation was necessary the plaintiffs agreed to pay the additional charge from Bhatni to Deoria, and it was finally settled between the plaintiffs and the defendant that a third class bogie would be attached to 1 Up passenger train from Bhatni. In accordance with this alleged arrangement the plaintiffs sent their servant to Bhatni to purchase 92 third class tickets and asked the station staff to attach the reserved carriage to the train. It is suggested that the station staff were not honest because they wanted some illegal gratification, which was not paid, and that owing to their wilful neglect they omitted to attach the bogie carriage to the train by which the plaintiffs party was to go to Cawnpore. The result was that when the train arrived there was no reserved carriage available at Deoria and the plaintiffs party was put to considerable inconvenience, and the plaintiffs to annoyance and disappointment. They claimed Rs. 5,000 as damages, and Rs. 17-4-0, the excess amount of fare realized from them for the journey from Bhatni to Deoria.

(2.) The defendant-company denied that there was any complete contract between the parties under which the company was bound to provide reserved accommodation. They also denied that there was any dishonesty on the part of their servants and pleaded that, owing to a mistake, the carriage which was intended to be reserved had been returned to Gorakhpur by an earlier train.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge, on the question of fact, came to the conclusion that there was no mistake committed and that a bogie carriage was available at Bhatni, but was not attached to the train by which the plaintiffs pairokar returned. He did not believe the defendants story that the carriage had been sent on by mistake earlier in the day. On the question of completeness of the agreement he was of opinion that, although the railway did not make a definite promise to provide reserved accommodation but only promised to make an endeavour to supply the required bogie carriage, nevertheless the plaintiffs agent did go to Bhatni to purchase tickets, and 92 tickets were sold to him on the understanding that reserved accommodation would be available. In his opinion therefore the contract was complete as soon as the tickets were issued.