FIRM GANGA PRASAD RATAN Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-applicant sued the Secretary of State for India in Council through the Agent of the East India Railway for recovery of a sum of money. On February 2, 1932, the applicant sent a consignment of 552 bundles of jaggery from Haidernagar Station to Agra Port at the rate of 9 annas 4 pies per maund. This rate was entered in the railway receipt which was handed over to the applicant and the freight was calculated accordingly, but when the applicant went to take delivery at Agra Fort Station, freight was demanded at the rate of 15 annas 8 pies per maund. The applicant had to pay a sum of Rs. 122-7-0 before he could take delivery of this consignment of jaggery. The applicant claimed recovery of Rs. 122-7-0 plus Rs. 34-9-0 as interest by way of damages, plus Rs. 31 as costs of a notice, total Rs. 160. The case for the plaintiff-applicant was inter alia that since the Railway Company had entered into a contract with him through the booking clerk, who was an agent on their behalf authorized to enter into such contract, and since the rate according to this contract between the applicant and the agent of the company was 9 annas 4 pies per maund, the company bad no title to repudiate the contract and demand payment at a higher rate. The suit was contested en various grounds including pleas of jurisdiction, limitation and want of proper notice, and it was also pleaded that the Railway Company was protected by Clause 6 of the conditions printed on the railway receipt, which reads as follows: That the Railway Administration have the right of re-measurement, re- weighment, re-classification and re-calculation of rates, terminals and other charges at the place of destination and of collecting, before the goods are delivered, any amount that may have been omitted or undercharged.

(2.) The Small Cause Court at Agra had dismissed the suit and the plaintiff has come to this Court in revision. Learned Counsel for the applicant pleads that the basis of the contract has been illegally altered by the Railway Company without notice to the public of Haidernagar in general and to the applicant in particular. Adorittedly the goods were sent at what are known as C.L. schedule rates. In Rule 61 of the Indian Railways General Classification of Goods, rates are divided into three divisions, viz., class rates , schedule rates , and station to station rates . In the class rates division there are 10 classes. A Foreign Rate Circular No. 6 of 1931 was issued on December 1, 1931, and under Art. 38 it was provided the jaggery should be charged at rates equal to first class O.R. with effect from January 1, 1932. There is no evidence on behalf of the company to show that this circular was sent to Haidernagar and the booking clerk of Haidernagar was not put in the witness-box. The munim of the applicant swears that the booking clerk told him that the rate was 9 annas 4 pies, and as I have already shown, this is the rate which was entered in the railway receipt. My attention has been drawn to Railway Conference Regulations, Part 2, Clause 28(j), which lays down that "no enhancement of rates payable by the public should be made until after one month's previous notice has been given". It is contended on behalf of the applicant that no such notice was published, that the defendant company have failed to show that the aforementioned circular was ever sent to Haidernagar and that the booking clerk had no knowledge of any change in the rates, and this being so, the Railway Company is bound by the contract into which their agent entered with the applicant.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate pleads that there was in fact no enhancement of rates and no change in the basis of the contract, but merely a re- classification and a consequent and necessary re-calculation of rates following on the re classification. In Chunni Lal V/s. Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway Co. Ltd. 29 A. 228 : A.L.J. 80 : A.W.N. 1907, 21 (F.B.) two waggon loads of chillies were received at Bezwada on the Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway for carriage to Agra on the G.I.P. Railway at a rate or Rs. 270 per waggon. On arrival at Agra the station master demanded payment at a higher rate calculated per maund and not per waggon and refused delivery until such rates were paid. The consignees paid under protest and sued for a refund of the excess charges. It was held by a Full Bench of this Court that a bye-law of the G.I.P. Railway which reserved to the railway the right of re-measurement, re-weighment, re-calculation and re- classification of rates at the place of destination and of collecting before the goods were delivered any amount that might have been omitted or under-charged, did not authorize the G.I.P. Railway Company to alter the contract between the parties, and charge at the place of destination maivnd rates instead of waggon rates. The facts of that case are manifestly distinguishable from the facts of the case which I am now considering.