- (1.) M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited, appellant had brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 16839.79 Ps. along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation thereof against the Union of India representing Northern Railways claiming inter alia, that the suit has been filed through the duly authorised person and that the plaintiff-Corporation booked motor spirit at Panki on 2/3.1.1978 for Patiala vide Railway Receipt No. 500407 of the aforesaid date vide Invoice No. 254. The motor spirit loaded was 27200 litres. The wagon on arrival at Patiala was found in leaking condition with its bottom seal missing. The railway authorities certified that at the time of booking of the motor spirit the dip measured 214.5 cms. while at the destination the dip was 169.0 cms., meaning thereby that there was a shortage of 45.5 cms. and when calculated in terms of litres, the loss came to 5382 litres, the value of which is Rs. 16839.79Ps. The plaintiff submitted a claim under section 78-B of the Railways Act to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railways, New Delhi, but to no effect. Even the notice issued under section 80 of the C.P.C. failed to evoke positive response and hence, the suit.
(2.) The suit had been resisted by the Union of India. Besides denying the authority of the person, through whom the suit had been filed, to bring the suit, the defendant has denied any loss to have occurred to the plaintiff on account of any negligence of the Railways. It is claimed that the loading was done at the siding of the plaintiff by its staff and not by the staff of the Railways. The joint dip certificate is also said to have been issued on 'without prejudice' basis. Denying any shortage of motor spirit in the wagon, the suit is prayed to be dismissed. The plea of limitation is also taken to defeat the claim of the plaintiff.
(3.) The plaintiff had brought the replication to the written statement and on the pleadings of the parties, learned Sub Judge, Patiala framed the following issues vide order dated 27.1.1982:- 1. Whether the suit has been filed by the authorised person?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has suffered loss due to the negligence, misconduct and carelessness of the defendant?OPP 3. To what amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant?OPP 4. Whether the notices given by the plaintiff are illegal and invalid, if so its effect?OPD 5. Relief.;