BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. BBAND CIRAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the plaintiff arising out of a Small Cause Court suit instituted by him against the B.B. and C.I. Railway to recover a sum of money on account of damages. The plaintiff wrote a letter to the station master of Agra Fort railway station, a servant of the defendant company, stating that he desired to engage a special train for carrying a barat party from Agra to Hathras Station and inquiring what the minimum charges will be for the same. The station master wrote back that the charges will be Rs. 250. Later on, the station master wrote to the plaintiff that he will have to pay Rs. 25 more in addition to the sum of Rs. 250 and to this the plaintiff agreed by his letter dated 24 February 1937. On 26 February 1937, when the plaintiff went to the railway station he was told that the correct charges were more than the amount mentioned by the station master and the plaintiff therefore had to pay a sum of Rs. 320 in addition to Rs. 275 which had been agreed upon before. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court below to recover a sum of Rs. 320 which he had to pay in excess of the amount agreed upon. The suit has been dismissed by the learned Judge of the Court below and the plaintiff has come up in revision. The plaintiff's contention was that the station master, an agent of the railway company, had agreed that the charges would be Rs. 275 and so in these circumstances the railway company was not entitled to charge anything more but was bound by the contract entered into by the defendant. The learned Judge of the Court below has repelled this contention. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant referred to Macnamara's Law of Carriers by Land, Edn. 2, p. 192. It is stated there that a railway company are bound, in the course of their business as carriers, by the contract of the agent whom they put forward as having the management of that part of their business.

(2.) Reliance is also placed on Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 22, para. 395, p. 218, where it is laid down that where the servant, whilst acting in the ordinary course of his employment on his master's behalf, makes a contract which falls within the apparent scope of his authority, the master cannot escape liability on the ground that he did not authorize the making of the contract....

(3.) Reliance was also placed on Winkfield V/s. Packington (1827) 2 Car &P 599. In that case it was held that if, before sending goods by a carrier, the sender applies at his wharf to know at what price certain goods will be carried, and he is told by the clerk who is transacting the business there, 2s. 6d. per cet., and on the faith of this he sends the goods, the carrier cannot charge more, although it be proved that the carrier had previously charged all goods according to a printed book of rates in which 3s. 6d. per cwt. of the goods was set down for goods of the sort in question. In deciding the question it must be borne in mind that in this country the cases between carriers by rail and other parties are to be governed with reference to the Contract Act and the Railways Act. In the present case the defendant company pleaded that the information given by their servant to the plaintiff was incorrect and that when the plaintiff went to the railway station to purchase his tickets for the special train the mistake was found out and the plaintiff was asked to pay the entire amount actually chargeable before he could get the tickets. Under Section 47, Railways Act (Act 9 of 1890) the Railway Company have the powers to make rules. One of the rules which they have made and which is applicable to all passengers is that the passengers have to pay the railway fares fixed by the railways. The rules made by the railways as regards fares, etc., are to be found in the Coaching Tariff. Rule 23 of the Coaching Tariff of the defendant company says: The railway reserves the right to correct any charges that may have been incorrectly made and to recover undercharges from whatever cause arising.