Decided on October 05,1972



- (1.) This is a revision petition under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to revise the judgment of the learned subordinate Judge in S.C. No. 151 of 1969 dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards damages and subsequent interest and costs.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows : A bale of yarn containing 40 bundles was booked at Bijainagar railway station in Ajmeer district of Rajasthan State on 29-1-68 for carriage by the Western Railway to Rajahmundry. The Plaintiffs are the Consignees. As the consignment did not reach within a reasonable time, they wrote a letter on 11-4-1968 enquiring about the consignment and| it was followed by another letter dated 15-5-1968. The consignment reached Rajahmundry on 24-5-1968. P, W. 1, the son of the proprietor of the plaintiff firm went and saw the consignment and found the same drenched in oil with the piking spoiled . On 10- 4-1968, the plaintiffs gave a requisition, Exhibit A- 4 to the Railway Station Master, Rajahmundry to the effect that the consignment was found damaged and that they would be entitled to claim damages from the railway authorities. As there was no reply from the railway authorities, the plaintiffs gave another notice, Exhibit B- 1 on 2-12-1968 to the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabd stating that the plaintiffs refused to take delivery of the goods as they were damaged and that the railway authorities were responsible for the loss sustained by the plaintiffs and demand was also made for damages. Another notice, Exhibit A- 5 dated 21-2-1969 was issued to the General Manager of South Central Railway, Western Railway and the Central Railway and also to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, South Central Railway and the Station Master, Rajahmundry reiterating their demand for damages. The defendants 2 and 3 that is, the General Managers of the Western Railway and Central Railway sent replies stating that the plaintiffs should correspond with the first defendant, General Manager of South Central Railway, Secunderabad stating that they had nothing to do with the plaintiffs' claim for damages. As the first defendant did not send any reply the present suit was filed on 26-4-1969 claiming damages .of Rs. 1500/- together with interest and costs. The Bill, Exhibit A- 9 Was filed showing that the plaintiffs had purchased similar yarn from a dealer of Adoni in March, 1968.
(3.) This suit was rontested hv the defendants stating that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim damages as the plaintiffs were not prepared to take delivery of the goods, that there was no proper notice issued on behalf of the plaintiffs and that the suit was barred by limitation The lower court held that after the goods reached the destination, namely, Rajahmundry, the plaintiffs refused to take delivery of the goods on the ground that they were in damaged condition and therefore they would be disentitled to claim any damages. In support of this conclusion, the lower court relied upon the decisions in Jusaf & Ismail Co. v. Governor-General Union of India v. Hukumchand and Union of India v. 1.G. Tobaco Marchant The lower court, however, negatived the contentions of the defendants that the notice was defective and that the suit was barred by limitation. In view of its finding that as the plaintiffs have refused to take delivery of the goods, they would not be entitled to any action the lower court dismissed the suit.;

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