R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff-appellant, the Punjab State Co- operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh (for short the Federation), has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgement and decree dated 25.10.1978 passed by the Court of the Sub-Judge First Class, Jalandhar who dismissed the money suit of the plaintiff-appellant for damages against the UOI and Chief Commercial Superintendent (Claims),Northern Railway, I.R.C.A. Building, New Delhi.
(2.) THE pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner :- The Federation through its Managing Director filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 33,872/- against the defendants by inter alia alleging that the consignment of 500 bales each containing 400 new empty gunny bags properly packed was tendered for despatch at Howrah in good condition and was booked in Wagon No. WRG-30663 under the supervision of the railway staff; that the consignment was booked under Invoice No. 364 RR No. 029953 dated 3.6.1971 to Jalandhar City consigned to the plaintiff as consignee; that on 10.6.1971 said wagon was unloaded by the Railway Authorities at a kacha uncovered shed against the wishes of the plaintiff who had objected to that; that after unloading the bales of gunny bags, the defendant failed to provide proper covering by tarpaulines even to protect the goods from the damage in the event of rains, that the consignment sustained damages as the Railway Authorities at the destination allowed the same to remain uncovered in the open on kacha uncovered platform in the rainy season. Thus, the Railway Authorities failed to protect the consignment; that the consignment got wet and continued to lie in knee deep water and the plaintiff thus, suffered a damage of approximately Rs. 30,000/- and a written request was made to the Goods Inspector, Jalandhar, to arrange delivery as assessment of the damage; that the Railway Authorities did not pay the damages to the plaintiff Society though the same was got assessed. Resultantly, notice under Section 78 of the Indian Railway Act was given to the defendants. Notice under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure was also given. Suit was contested by the defendants who alleged that the suit is not legally maintainable and that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit because federation is not a juristic person in the eye of law. The loading and unloading of goods was admitted by the defendants. However, it was stated that unloading of the goods was done by the plaintiff through its representative Shri Har Kishan Lal, Contractor who signed on the railway record regarding the said unloading. The defendants denied that no covering of tarpaulines was provided. The defendants further admitted that the goods were unloaded on run up siding at an open platform as per routine and that they were not negligent and all care was done in protecting the goods from damage. The liability of the carrier terminated when the plaintiff refused to accept delivery of their goods and that the book delivery of the goods was taken by the plaintiff on 5.7.1971 and the plaintiff himself was to be blamed for his negligence for not removing the goods and, therefore, the suit is not liable to be decreed.
(3.) THE plaintiff filed replication in which he reiterated the allegations made against him and denied the averments made in the written statement.;