UNION OF INDIA Vs. A. VENKATAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India, owning the Northern Railway and the Southern Railway, respectively represented by their General Managers, are the appellants. The plaintiff is a merchant carrying on businss in betel leaves, and his course of dealings extends to trading in North India as well. It is usual for the plaintiff to consign such betel leaves in specially prepared baskets each basket containing about 3000 leaves, and consign them through the Grand Trunk Express and the Janata Express belonging to the appellants to the various stations in North India. In the course of the dealings between 25 -3 -1962 and 24 -6 -1962, the respondent -plaintiff consigned from Madras such betel leaves packed in specially prepared baskets for being carried to Lucknow and Kanpur within the jurisdiction of the first appellant. As the goods were perishable, special precautions were taken by the respondent and the respondent expected that the carriers would take the goods as fast as they could and deliver the same at the respective places of destination. The plaintiff naturally expected equally that the carriers would take all reasonable precaution to carry such perishable goods after taking all reasonable caution regarding their preservation in the course of the carriage. It appears that during such period, 450 baskets of betels were not delivered at the respective places of destination and 169 baskets thereof were a total damage to the respondent. Consequent upon such injury caused to him, the plaintiff came to Court after issuing the due notices under the provisions of the Railways Act and the Civil Procedure Code, for damages at the rate of Rs. 16 per basket even though, according to the plaintiff, he was entitled to Rs. 20 per basket. In fact, his claim towards such damages was partially met, and in the plaint, the plaintiff has given credit to such of those amounts said by the appellants in partial admission of the damage caused to the plaintiff's goods in the course of transit. The plaintiff, prior to the action, called upon the defendants to pay damages as claimed by him earlier in the notices, and as he could not get satisfaction of his claims as made by him, he has come to Court seeking a sum of Rs. 9,090 which, according to him, represented the value of the damaged goods, and prayed for, a decree in that sum.

(2.) THE second defendant, in the action (the second appellant) in its written statement took up various stands, such as, that the respondent had no right to sue, that there was no negligence on the part of the railway administration as carriers when they carried the goods of the respondent to the respective places of destination; that the goods became damaged on account of their inherent perishable nature; and that the goods were defectively packed; and on such pleas, it denied the claim in to stating that the short delivery as well as the total loss as claimed by the plaintiff was not due to any overt act on the part of the railway as carriers. In any event, the second defendant stated that the consignments were booked at the owner's risk and that the railways were absolved from liability. On the merits, the second defendant pleaded that the plaintiff did not properly give credit to the amounts received by him from the railway administration in regard to certain consignments towards which damage was more or less admitted. In the ultimate analysis, in the written statement of the second defendant, which was adopted by the first defendant, the defendants pleaded that they were not liable for the suit claim.

(3.) ON issue No. 2, the learned Judge held that the respondent had the right and title to sue as consignor and consignee and as the consignee was not a person different from the consignor, the respondent had the right to institute the action. On issues 3 to 5, which pinpointed on the damage and shortage of the goods, and whether such damage was the result of the negligence and misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration, the trial Judge found that the alleged damage and shortage were due to the negligence and misconduct on the part of the appellants and not due to the inherent perishable nature of the goods, as contended by the defendants. On issues 1 and 6, with which practically we are concerned in this appeal, the learned Judge, after considering the evidence before him, and after hearing the parties, decreed the suit in a sum of Rs. 7,728 -40 holding that the plaintiff is entitled to damages at the rate of Rs. 15 per basket. As a matter of fact, the calculation made by the learned Judge even in the judgment appears to be not quite correct, as the damages will work out to some thing more than the sum awarded by him, if the damages were to be reckoned at the rate of Rs. 15 per basket. As a matter of fact, it would come to Rs. 9,285 and after deducting the sum of Rs. 812 received by the plaintiff, it would amount certainly to something more than the computed amount of Rs. 7,728 -40. However, that need not detain us.