- (1.) THIS is plaintiff's ap peal in which he has prayed for a decree in the further sum of Rs. 3,301.16 P. against the Union of India respondent No. 5.
(2.) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,920.19 P. against the defendants. Defendants first set were con signors and they are residents of Aligarh, whereas defendant second set was the Union of India which owns the railways. A con signment of maize was dispatched from Nizamabad Railway station in Andhra Pra desh on the 19th September, 1964. This consignment reached Aligarh at the destina tion station on 3rd of October, 1964. The consignee after inspecting the goods was of the opinion that the goods had deteriorated and were damaged and asked for, an open delivery. The railways had asked that be fore any assessment of damage was done, the consignee better take book delivery and that was done. On the lOh of October, 1964 an officer of the railways expressed his in ability to make the assessment as the dama ges were beyond his power and the assess ment could only be made by the Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Allahabad who would be asked to come and do it. Plain tiff thereafter says that nothing was done in the matter and the assessment of the damage was not done. The delivery of the goods was not taken till the 12th of July, 1965, when it was so done under the order of the court, in the meantime, the plaintiff had filed a suit against the two sets of the de fendants and had claimed damages. The defence of the defendants first set was that the goods sent by them were of a good quality and not defective or damag ed. The Union of India had also denied their liability for any loss, deterioration, damage or destruction. The railways had taken the plea that the claim against them was barred under Section 77 (2) of the Rail ways Act. The trial Court by its judgment decreed the suit of the plaintiff for their recovery of Rs. 3,587.42 P. against the de fendants first party with proportionate_ costs and dismissed the suit against the Union of India, with costs.
(3.) THAT against the above decision, two appeals were filed, one by the plaintiff -Appeal No. 490 of 1966 and the other Ap peal No. 464 of 1966 was filed by the defen dant first set, the consignor. By its judgment the Lower Appellate Court allowed both the appeals and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and instead decreed the plain tiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,587.42 P. along with pendent elite and future interest at 6% p. a. with proportionate costs in both the courts, against the Union of India. The suit was dismissed against the defendants first set who were, however, directed to bear their own costs in both the courts.;