SUDARSHAN MAHARAJ NANDRAM Vs. EAST INDIAN RAILWAY COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application raises a point of some little interest. The plaintiff sued the East Indian Railway Company for damage done to a consignment containing machine-made lace. The consignment was of over the value of Rs. 100, but the value and the contents had not been declared and no extra freight had been paid by way of compensation for increased risks.

(2.) The Railway Company pleaded that under the provisions of Section 75 of Act No. IX of 1890, it was not liable.

(3.) The contention on the other side is that the word " lace " in the second schedule to Act IX of 1890 means hand-made lace and not machine-made lace. In support of this contention their learned Counsel has referred to 28 and 29 Victoria, Cap. 94, Section 1. This was an Act to amend the Carriers Act in England, and this section laid down that where the word " lace " was used in the Carriers Act it was to be construed as not including machine-made lace, but the fact that this Amending Act was passed is no authority for an interpretation that the word " lace " standingly itself does not include machine-made lace. As I interpret the Amending Act, it simply excludes from the provisions of the Carriers Act machine- made lace. Had the Act not been passed, machine-made lace would have been included in the provision. The passing of the Amending Act excludes machine- made lace from the operation of the Carriers Act in England, but in the Indian Railways Act the word " lace " must necessarily include both hand-made lace and machine-made lace. If the Act contained the word " boots, " it could hardly be contested seriously that the word "boots" means only hand-made boots and excludes machine-made boots. Applying the ordinary meaning of the word " lace" both in its colloquial and in its business and technical senses, machine-made lace is as much lace as hand-made lace.