UNION OF INDIA Vs. BENODE KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
Banerjee, J. -
(1.) The plaintiff, who is the respondent, claims to be a business man in stationery and toilet goods. He came to court with the case that, on June 9, 1951, he purchased a Railway Ticket from Bombay (Victoria Terminus) to Howrah and booked his luggages, consisting of nine cases of toilet goods. He paid the proper freight for the luggages and obtained luggage. Ticket No. 4919/9, dated June 9, 1951. According to the plaintiff the luggages were to be carried by 1 down train, leaving Bombay on June 9, 1951. Plaintiff alleged that the Railway Administration failed to deliver the luggages at Howrah Station and thus failed to perform its contractual obligation. The plaintiff claimed that he suffered a loss of Rs. 16,767-8-0 as detailed below:
(2.) In the aforesaid circumstances the plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, claiming recovery of Rs. 16,767-8-0.
(3.) The suit was contested by the Railway Administration. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 12 of the written statement, which are material for the purposes of this appeal, are set out below;
"7. In regard to paras 3 and 4 of the plaint, the defendant states that a half-ticket was purchased purporting to be for a minor and that merchandise Of great value was booked under the guise of luggage to avoid declaration, under the Railways Act which the minor was not entitled to do and was in direct contravention of the Rules in force on the Railways and that if there was any contract, it was void as having been made by a minor; that the Railway Administrations are not liable to pay the compensation as claimed. That the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the ownership of the suit goods.
8. As regards para 5 of the plaint, the defendant does not admit the pecuniary loss which is false and highly inflated and puts the plaintiff to the strict proof of the value of the suit goods, The plaintiff is not entitled to refund of freight and that loss of profit at any percent is not maintainable in law being remote. The allegations of negligence, conversion, etc. are specitically denied.
12. That the defendant submits that the whole affair in connection with the luggage ticket is tainted with fraud and appears to be a big conspiracy to defraud the Railways, and that as the enquiry into this highly complicated case Of fraud has not yet been completed; the defendant craves leave of the Court to file an additional written statement as soon as the details we fully elicited and the whole affair is properly end correctly reconstructed, and that the defendant has every reason to believe that a sifting enquiry by a proper machinery for investigation Is bound to reveal a most daring and ingenious case of fraud. In the circumstances, the defendant denies any liability for compensation.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.