DOMINION OF INDIA Vs. EVERSHARP AGENCY
LAWS(BOM)-1954-2-9
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on February 24,1954

DOMINION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
EVERSHARP AGENCY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BRUNT V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY CO. [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA NATH SEN V. EAST INDIAN RAILWAY CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DOMINION OF INDIA VS. PREMCHAND SIREMAL AND CO [LAWS(KAR)-1958-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRANATH VS. NALINI VALLABHDAS SHAH MISS [LAWS(BOM)-1986-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT ELECTRICAL STORES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1964-1-16] [REFERRRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Chagla, C.J. - (1.)This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming damages for loss of three boxes containing Eversharp fountain pens and pencils which were consigned by railway from Bombay to Lahore. The damages are sought from the Dominion of India representing the Railway authority. The facts briefly are that on 24-2-1948, the plaintiffs, a firm carrying on business in Bombay, received a telephone message from Lahore to consign three boxes of Eversharp fountain pens and pencils, and on 25-2-1948, these three boxes were packed and plaintiff No. 2 Louis D'Souza, who is an employee of the first plaintiff firm, was asked to take these boxes to Lahore. Louis D'Souza got into a second class compartment and put these three boxes in the luggage van and obtained a luggage ticket in respect of these three boxes. He got out at Delhi as he had to change the train for going to Lahore. At Delhi he made inquiries at the luggage van whether these boxes had been brought. He could not get any information and he was told to make further inquiries at Amritsar, and at Amritsar when he arrived there he was told that the boxes had been missing. In fact, after some time one box was traced which was returned to the plaintiffs, but the other two boxes were never traced and at the hearing the plaintiffs confined their claim for damages to the two boxes which had been lost.
(2.)Now, three substantial defences were taken up by the Dominion of India before the Court below. The learned Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and the Dominion of India has come in appeal, and the same three defences have now been urged before us by Sir Jamshedji Kanga on behalf of the Dominion of India. The first contention is with regard to the notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. What is urged is that in the notice all that is stated is that the three cases contained stationery. The plaintiffs had not specified the fact that the stationery which they had packed in these three cases was Eversharp fountain pens and pencils. In our opinion there is no substance in this contention. Section 80 requires that the notice to be given to Government should be in a particular form and what the notice has to contain is the cause of action and the relief sought by the plaintiff. In the notice given the cause of action is set out and the relief sought is also mentioned. The nature of the goods is described, because it cannot be disputed that fountain pens and pencils are stationery. The mere fact that particulars of the stationery are not given would not invalidate the notice.
(3.)The second contention is on a question of fact and Sir Jamshedji has urged that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that these three cases in fact contained Eversharp fountain pens and pencils on which the claim for damages is based. (His Lordship after examining both oral and documentary evidence and concluding that the plaintiffs had established that they had put in the luggage van of the train three boxes containing fountain pens and pencils on which the claim was based proceeded):


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.