BABU OIL AND FLOUR MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by the plaintiff against the decree of the lower appellate court reversing the decree of the trial court which allowed the plaintiff's claim for compensation for the damage caused to the goods entrusted by him with the railway administration.

(2.) Two consignments, each consisting of 330 tins of oil, were entrusted by the plaintiff with the railway out-agency at Alleppey for carriage to Kanpur. The consignments were carried under Exts. D8 and D9 railway receipts which were Issued by the out-agency at Alleppey, Exts. D10 and D11 are the relative forwarding notes. The goods were carried by or on behalf of the railway administration by boat from Alleppey to Cochin where they were unloaded from the boat and loaded into the railway wagon by the railway. The two consignments together constituted one single wagon-load. At Itarsi D. W. 1 who is the unloading foreman opened the wagon. He found that 163 tins were damaged and oil had leaked out of them. The rest of the tins were in proper condition. Whatever oil could be collected as sweepings was poured into empty barrels and the goods were finally delivered to the consignee at Kanpur along with Ext. P1 certificate of damage and short assessment memo. The plaintiff thereupon sent Exts. P4 and P5 to the Railway administration demanding a sum of Rs. 8919.80 as compensation. As they refused to settle the claim, the plaintiff instituted the suit for damages.

(3.) The plaintiff's claim is resisted by the defendants on the ground that the goods were not properly packed before they were entrusted with the carrier. That the packing of the goods for the purpose of transhipment was insufficient appears to be clear from Exts. D8 to D11. Exts. D8 and D9 railway receipts contained the endorsement "P/l and P/3 not complied (with)". Exts. D10 and D11 contain the consignor's declaration "Tins are not packed according to the railway rules".