BHULLAN MAL ASA RAM Vs. SECYOF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by a plaintiff against concurring decrees of two lower Courts dismissing his suit for damages against the E.I. Ry. Co. and the Secy. of State for India in Council. The point which has been argued before us in appeal is a very short point of law. The lower appellate Court found in the paper-book on p. 16, line 16: From the evidence on the record and the circumstances and probabilities of the case, I am satisfied that plaintiff's son refused to take delivery of the goods in question because the Station Master was not prepared to reweigh the goods, as desired by plaintiff's son and not because the Station Master wanted plaintiff's son to sign the delivery book before showing the goods to the latter. A railway company is not bound by law either to re-weigh goods or certify shortage at the time of delivery to the consignee. Therefore, the refusal of a railway company to re-weigh goods before delivery does not justify a consignee in refusing to take delivery of the goods: vide, Suraj Mal Marwari V/s. Agent B.N. Ry. Co. [1919] 58 I.C. 200. and Kokamal V/s. G.I.P. Ry. Co. [1913] 11 A.L.J. 775.

(2.) The consignment was booked to the plaintiff as consignee, and it is admitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that there was no risk-note, and, therefore, the consignments travelled at railway risk. We consider, however, that this factor that there has been no risk-note is not of importance in deciding the general question as to whether the consignee has a right to demand reweighment before taking delivery. The learned Counsel for the respondents relies on a number of rulings which begin with Janki Das V/s. B.N. Ry. Co. [1912] 15 C.L.J. 211. In that ruling it is noted that the plaintiffs: refused to take delivery of the goods which were consigned to them except on certain conditions with which the railway company were not required by law to comply demanded a reweighment and a certificate of shortage. The railway is not required by law either to reweigh or to certify shortage.

(3.) This was in the judgment of the District Judge. The point as to whether the railway company was bound to comply with a demand for reweighment was not discussed at all in the ruling and it will be noted that what the plaintiff demanded was not merely a reweighment but a certificate of shortage. Accordingly this ruling is no authority whatever for the proposition advanced by the lower appellate Court. But this ruling has been treated as authority for this proposition by all subsequent rulings to which reference has been made. Thus in Ramjash Agarwala V/s. Indian General Navigation and Ry. Co. Ltd. [1917] 22 C.W.N. 310, the decision is based solely on Janki Das V/s. B.N. Ry. Co. [1912] 15 C.L.J. 211 without any further reason whatever. We may also note that the circumstances in Ramjash Agarwala V/s. Indian General Navigation and Ry. Co. Ltd. [1917] 22 C.W.N. 310 were different, because it was a case where goods had been conveyed by a steamer and on arrival of the goods at the place of destination the plaintiff's servant paid the freight, signed the bill of lading and gave a clear receipt in the delivery register of the defendant company. It was after this that he asked the booking clerk to reweigh the goods that the refusal was made. The next to which reference has been made is Jagan Nath Marwari V/s. E.I. Ry. Co. [1918] 22 C.W.N. 902. There is no reason whatever given in the judgment of the "single Judge who decided this case. The above three rulings were of the Calcutta High Court. The next case is of the Patna High Court, Suraj Mal Marwari V/s. Agent, B.N. Ry. Co. [1919] 58 I.C. 200., In this ruling reference is made to the three decisions of the Calcutta High Court and no reason is given for the decision that: a railway company is not bound by law either to reweigh goods or certify shortage at the time of delivery to the consignee.