Pratibha Bonnerjea, J. - (1.) The plaintiff sued the defendant on two contracts of carriage of goods for recovery of compensation for non-delivery of the consignments.
(2.) On 28-6-64, the plaintiff a Dutta-pukur delivered to the Eastern Railway 6 rolls of galvanised wire netting 19,200 sq. ft. for carrying the same a Railway's risk to Mal junction through N.F. Rly. and the defendant issued R/R No. A 116018 dated 28-6-64 in respect to the same. The goods were to be delivered to the consignee. Sub-Divisional Officer (P.W.D.) Mal Construction Sub-division. The defendant failed to deliver the goods at the destination. A claim was duly lodged with the Chief Commercial Superintendent (Claim) N. F. Railway to the extent of Rs. 7207.68 hut the defendant failed to pay the said sum or any part thereof. The defendant in the written statement alleged that these goods were duly delivered at Nasrakata on 22-7-64 against a clear receipt dated 25-7-64 and the plaintiff was duly informed about the same by letter dated 20-8-65.
(3.) On 13-6-66, the plaintiff again delivered to the Eastern Railway Administration at Duttapukur another 6 rolls of galvanized wire netting containing 19,200 sq. ft. valued at Rs. 7221.12 to be delivered at Dalgaon to the consignee Sub-divisional Officer (P.W.D.) Gairkata Sub-division under relevant R/R No. 049390 dated 13-6-66. The defendant failed to deliver the goods and the plaintiff duly lodged a claim for the said sum with the Chief Commercial Manager (Claim) N. F. Rly. but the defendant failed and neglected to pay the said amount or any portion thereof. In the written statement the defendant disputed the plaintiff's title over the said noods and also the quantity or value thereof. It was alleged that the suit was bad for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 78B of the Railways Act 1890 and the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. The following issues were raised for decision: 1. Is the plaintiff owner of the goods covered by Railway Receipt No. A 116018 dated 28th June 1964 and Railway Receipt No. A 049390 dated 13th June 1966 as alleged in the plaint? 2. Did the defendant take all due and reasonable care and precaution for the carriage and the transit of consignments in question as a man of ordinary prudence would take under the similar circumstances for the same as alleged in paras 6 and 10 of the written statement? 3. Did the defendant deliver the goods covered by Railway receipts dated 28th June 1964 and 13th June 1966 to the consignee, Sub-Divisional Officer, P.W.D., Mal Construction Sub-Division?;